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

Bug#684516: R: Re: Regarding: Bug#684516: bluetooth loaded for UNKNOWN reason



Hi,
thanks for your advice. I'm going to test this in a week or two. (i'll restore 
a backup image , via dd)
At the moment i installed another distro on this pc, to understand if the 
problem is hardware related.

indeed, it could be a simple hardware problem on this asus notebook, like a 
buggy mobo for example.

#683807 made me think that.
indeed , the strange thing: nobody posted a message like: "hey i have that 
problem too!" . 


After the test with the other distro, i'll restore debian on this pc.

btw, what do you mean with 'ramdisk' ? is that 'initramfs' ? if i remove that 
file, will the system be still bootable?
(sorry, i still am not an expert about the linux boot stuff)

bye
Asdrubale

>----Messaggio originale----
>Da: stappers@stappers.nl
>Data: 25-ago-2012 19.59
>A: "asronchetti@libero.it"<asronchetti@libero.it>
>Cc: <stappers@stappers.nl>
>Ogg: Re: Regarding: Bug#684516: bluetooth loaded for UNKNOWN reason
>
>On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 09:46:07AM +0200, asronchetti@libero.it wrote:
>> Da: stappers@stappers.nl
>> Data: 20-ago-2012 22.56
>> >
>> >My advice is to research what causes the bluetooth module to be loaded.
>> >
>>
>> that was the reason for me to open this bug report.
>> was it such a simple task i'd already solved it by myself.
>
>Nobody said it would be easy.
>
>
>Another approach to the challenge:
>
>Remove the bluetooth module from /lib/modules and the initial ramdisk,
>so that the computer hasn't any more the module.
>
>You might get an error message from what tries to load bluetooth.
>Yes, I assume that the computer boots.
>
>No load error on bluetooth only a problem,
>when the crash is gone.
>
>
>What I'm trying to say:
>
>* focus on the problem^Wchallenge
>* no limits  ( so removing the bt module, is not beyond a limit )
>* do not wait for other
>
>
>Groeten
>Geert Stappers
>-- 
>> And is there a policy on top-posting vs. bottom-posting?
>Yes.
>


Reply to: