Bug#386972: Bug#387025: Bug#386972: Network failure on upgrade to 2.6.16
forwarded 386972 http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7159
thanks
Seems the message below never went out, likely because the SMTP server
at work refused to forward a message from @debian.org. Sorry about the
delay.
As it turns out, booting with "acpi=off" solves this network problem.
Is this resolution satisfactory to the Debian kernel team? Or should
Debian kernels be able to boot on old (non-ACPI) hardware without
boot-time options?
Put differently, is there a way to config around this, so it boots on
both ACPI and non-ACPI machines without boot-time options?
-Adam
On Thu, 2006-09-14 at 14:09 -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> forwarded 386972 http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7159
> thanks
>
> On Thu, 2006-09-14 at 08:14 +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 11:52:38PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > > On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 23:11:23 +0200 maximilian attems wrote:
> > >
> > > > we don't support 2.6.16 anymore, no need to play around,
> > > > thus remerging the bugs.
> > > > please be so kind to provide upstream bug report as follow up
> > >
> > > If no longer supported, then the correct thing to do is either to
> > > abandon the package (to allow others to possibly adopt it and continue
> > > its support in Debian), or request its removal from the archive.
> > >
> > > Not supporting a package is no excuse for avoiding bugreports against
> > > it!
> >
> > ahh i love your constructive interaction in bug reports.
> > what matters is that the etch targeted kernel seems still affected.
> > 2.6.16 is kept in the archive for beta 3 of d-i.
>
> Then tag it 'wontfix', and let it die when the package is removed.
> Sorry, you need a better explanation than that. As it stands, denying a
> bug in a package which is currently in the archive violates the Social
> Contract.
>
> > > And please remember that it is the job of the package maintainer to pass
> > > on relevant info to upstream, not the bugreporter. Great if they do,
> > > but not their job really.
> >
> > that is practicable for small projects.
> > if bug submitter verifies it on latest kernel, upstream is happy to know
> > about the trouble and will interact much quicker with the reporter itself.
>
> I agree. Just submitted bug 7159 to kernel bugzilla.
>
> -Adam
--
GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6
Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe!
http://www.take6.com/albums/greatesthits.html
Reply to: