Re: pcmcia-modules in woody
On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Brian Mays wrote:
> Lauri Tischler <lauri.tischler@efore.fi> wrote:
>
> > pcmcia-modules for kernels 2.19 and 2.20 dont exist.
>
> A set of pcmcia-modules-2.2.20 packages do exist. I uploaded a new set
> of these packages yesterday to sid. As for the packages in woody, I
> have no control over that. I wish the archive maintainers would replace
> the outdated packages in woody, but they never do. If you would like to
> help, file bugs against "ftp.debian.org" asking them to move the newer
> packages into woody.
>
> If anyone knows how to get packages into woody, please let me know.
> It's a complete mystery to me.
It seems there need to happen at least three things until the new pcmcia-*
packages can go into woody:
1. the obsolete packages for older images must be removed by the ftp
masters from unstable -> you should file a bug against ftp.debian.org
asking for the removal of these packages from unstable (unfortunately
this must be done by hand by the ftp admins)
2. the packages in unstable must be built at least on all four
architectures (alpha, arm, i386, powerpc) they were ever built on -
including all binary packages that were ever built from this source
package on these architectures (for binary packages that do no longer
exist on an architecture see 1.)
3. the two RC bugs (#110719 and #119837) must be fixed
You should perhaps start with fixing the RC bugs instead of bugging the
ftp admins - without them fixed your package will never go into testing...
> The pcmcia-modules packages have not been discontinued. I continue to
> build packages to accompany the latest kernel-image packages for the
> 2.2 and 2.4 series kernels. This means that I have built six packages
> for the 2.2.20 kernels and one for the 2.4.17 kernel using the latest
> version of pcmcia-cs.
>
> I have neither the time nor the resources, however, to build packages
> for all of the kernel-image packages out there (last time I counted
> there were 27 of these packages). Anyone willing to build these
> packages is welcome to do so. I have tried to automate and document the
> procedure as much as possible, and I am willing to provide advice and
> assistance to anyone willing to try.
>
> Fortunately, some of the maintainers of the kernel-image packages are
> nice enough to also build a new pcmcia-modules package to accompany a
> new version of their packages. That certainly helps.
BTW: It's _extremely_ ugly to build these binary pacakges in a way that a
"dpkg-buildpackage -B" doesn't rebuild them all.
> - Brian
cu
Adrian
Reply to: