On Sun, 2010-04-04 at 21:20 +0100, Anton Ivanov wrote: > On Sun, 2010-04-04 at 20:40 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > On Sun, 2010-04-04 at 09:44 +0100, Anton Ivanov wrote: > > > Package: linux-image-2.6.26 > > > Version: nfsfix.1 > > > > What does that version mean? Have you applied your own patches? Can > > you reproduce this with an official kernel package? > > That is a rather old "official" with only the NFS regression applied > (the one I dug out a while back - bug 524199). It worked and I have not > touched it since. That fix was applied in a stable update some time ago. You do not need to use your own patched kernel version, and if you continue with that version you will be missing security updates. > That is just one machine on which I am observing it. I also see it on > several other machines with: > > 1. Latest "Official" - 486, 686 [...] OK. Next, can you test whether the kernel version in unstable (linux-image-2.6.32-4-* version 2.6.32-10) or testing (linux-image-2.6.32-3-* version 2.6.32-9) also has this bug? Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part