Bug#384685: marked as done (There is no 2.6.17 kernel for linux-image-686-smp)
Your message dated Fri, 25 Aug 2006 17:02:48 -0600
with message-id <[🔎] 20060825230248.GC18414@colo>
and subject line Bug#384685: There is no 2.6.17 kernel for linux-image-686-smp
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message ---
Package: linux-image-686-smp
Version: 2.6.16+0.2
Severity: wishlist
It has been over a month since 2.6.17 has been released and there is still no version of 2.6.17-smp out yet for linux-image-686-smp. I'm having to compile my own kernels. Please run kernel-package and fix this problem. Thanks in advance.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.17
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Versions of packages linux-image-686-smp depends on:
ii linux-image-2.6-686-smp 2.6.17-5 Linux kernel 2.6 image on PPro/Cel
linux-image-686-smp recommends no packages.
-- no debconf information
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 03:11:56PM -0700, Robert Jeffrey Miesen wrote:
> It has been over a month since 2.6.17 has been released and there is
> still no version of 2.6.17-smp out yet for linux-image-686-smp. I'm
> having to compile my own kernels. Please run kernel-package and fix
> this problem. Thanks in advance.
The packages without the "-smp" extension have SMP support starting in
2.6.17.
Closing..
--
dann frazier
--- End Message ---
Reply to: