Bug#1022025: Upstream Reports
Hi Diederik,
Great news! I'm glad I did it correctly.
On 10/20/22 11:32 AM, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> On Thursday, 20 October 2022 17:26:42 CEST Dan Coleman wrote:
>> Yeah, I tried to apply it, but I had that same problem where I managed to
>> compile the .debs, but got a bunch of errors installing them with a black
>> screen at the end of the test. I use DKMS for nvidia and openrazer, and
>> that's been posing problems, which you'll see below. In addition, there are
>> dependency issues that dpkg and apt both complain about.
> I see that you, Salvatore and the upstream maintainer are in discussion in the
> upstream repo, so I'll leave that part in their capable hands :-)
>
> As for your build+install attempts, it looks like you did everything correct!
>
> Apparently "test-patches" does not build a 'headers-common' package and
> therefor installing the headers failed which in turn made DKMS fail.
That seems like less-than-ideal behavior for test-patches. Is that a bug that would benefit from being reported?
> I understand that you'd want that for a complete functioning system, but for
> testing this particular issue/patch it is sufficient. Once the proper fix is
> validated, all the kernel (related) packages will be rebuild and then the
> other things like DKMS should work again too.
> Unfortunately it turned out that just this patch wasn't sufficient to fix the
> issue as Alex Deucher indicated. How to proceed with that, I'll leave that up
> to Alex/Salvatore :-)
>
> You also removed the normal (i.e. Debian's) kernel meta package (linux-image-
> amd64) which prevented the installation of your patched kernel. After that the
> installation of your patched kernel succeeded. And you rebooted into that.
> Earlier you indicated you had doubts whether you did it correctly and therefor
> whether you were actually testing the patch and I'm quite sure you did (at
> least this time based on the output you shared).
>
> HTH,
> Diederik
Reply to: