Bug#334104: Why was this patch not applied ?

To: Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>, 334104@bugs.debian.org
Cc: Jurij Smakov <jurij@wooyd.org>
Subject: Bug#334104: Why was this patch not applied ?
From: md@Linux.IT (Marco d'Itri)
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 14:35:18 +0100
Message-id: <[🔎] 20060111133518.GA4886@wonderland.linux.it>
Reply-to: md@Linux.IT (Marco d'Itri), 334104@bugs.debian.org
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20060111130033.GA8451@localhost.localdomain>
References: <[🔎] 20060111130033.GA8451@localhost.localdomain>

On Jan 11, Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

> Any idea why this patch was not applied to our kernel and forwarded upstream ?
Because it probably breaks other cards.
IIRC this driver is especially relevant for a !x86 architecture.

-- 
ciao,
Marco

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Bug#334104: Why was this patch not applied ?
  - From: Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>

References:
- Bug#334104: Why was this patch not applied ?
  - From: Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>

Prev by Date: Bug#347551: linux-2.6: [powerpc, headers] headers miss the symlink to the asm-ppc files already migrated to asm-powerpc.
Next by Date: Bug#334104: Why was this patch not applied ?
Previous by thread: Bug#334104: Why was this patch not applied ?
Next by thread: Bug#334104: Why was this patch not applied ?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread