[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#338985: Bug#338984 closed by "Joop Stakenborg" <joop.pg4i@gmail.com> (Closing old bugs)



Dear readers,

For the bug and solution I refer to my email of 15 November 2005.

I read the comment of Hamid, sorry to say, you are wrong.

I am not sure about version number of libax25, but they depend
directly on kernel functions.

If I am correct there are 2 major changes one in from 2.0 kernel to
2.2 and the one from 2.2 to 2.4. In these changes function handles are
changed and also in libax25.

The 2.4 to 2.6 change, was inside the kernel functions not the handles
and pointers.

In the FBB program they use an old libax25 handle if you compile the
program for 2.2 kernel, hence it will not work on a system running
2.4.

Technically you are right, there is no bug in libax25 or FBB. But the
problem was that both the libax25 and FBB were compiled with wrong
options. Hence my remark that you let libax25 depend on the right
kernel. So a dependency and not a suggestion.

Thank you for listening to my complaining.

73, Arjan

On Dec 3, 2007 8:21 PM, Debian Bug Tracking System
<owner@bugs.debian.org> wrote:
> This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report
> which was filed against the libax25 package:
>
> #338984: incompatability of libax25 and kernel-2.4 and fbb program
>
> It has been closed by "Joop Stakenborg" <joop.pg4i@gmail.com>.
>
> Their explanation is attached below.  If this explanation is
> unsatisfactory and you have not received a better one in a separate
> message then please contact "Joop Stakenborg" <joop.pg4i@gmail.com> by replying
> to this email.
>
> Debian bug tracking system administrator
> (administrator, Debian Bugs database)
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Joop Stakenborg" <joop.pg4i@gmail.com>
> To: 338985-done@bugs.debian.org, 338984-done@bugs.debian.org
> Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 20:18:59 +0100
> Subject: Closing old bugs
> Bug reports dating from almost 2 years ago, bug submitter not responding.
>
>
>




Reply to: