Re: testing boot floppies 3.0.18
Joey Hess writes:
> Jeff Sheinberg wrote:
> > Ok, here is why the above check is not working corrrectly,
> >
> > from the "/var/lib/dpkg/info/ppp.postinst" file,
> >
> > test -f /etc/ppp/peers/provider || \
> > install -g dip -m 640 /usr/share/doc/ppp/examples/provider.peer /etc/ppp/peers /provider
>
> Hm, what version of ppp do you have there? The postinst here copies in
> /usr/share/ppp/provider.peer
135 jeff ~ $ dpkg --root=/bf-test -l ppp
[...]
ii ppp 2.4.1.uus-1 Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) daemon.
142 jeff ~ $ locate provider.peer
/usr/share/doc/ppp/examples/provider.peer
So, I have no such file /usr/share/ppp/provider.peer on my system.
>
> Anyway, I will upload a fix ASAP.
>
> > here is one such message, if you want to seem all of them, then
> > just install pcmcia-cs on a workstation,
> >
> > Linux PCMCIA Card Servide 3.1.29
> > kernel build: 2.2.19 unknown
> > option: [pci] [cardbus] [apm]
> > Intel ISA/PCI/Cardbus PCI probe: no bridges found
> > ds: no socket drives loaded
>
> Oh. That's minor and no worse than many kernel messages probing for
> nonexistant hardware. There's also no way to work around it since the
> boot floppie shave never removed pcmcia-cs if it is unneeded, that is
> left to base-config.
So, in /usr/lib/base-config/25pcmcia it says,
# If pcmcia was not set up in the instial install, it is safe to ask about
# removing it. If it was set up, keep it, and don't even ask.
if [ "$PCMCIA" = no ]; then
Last time I did a complete install, using a slightly older version
of base-config (current is 1.33, older was 1.xx, I don't know
exactly which version it was, whatever was in woody/testing just
prior to 1.33), pcmcia-cs had not been removed by base-config even
though I had not done anything to "set it up" under boot-floppies.
Could you have a look at the setting of this $PCMCIA variable? I
would have to close down my ppp connection, and then download the
30MB of standard packages to be able to test this right now.
>
> --
> see shy jo
--
Jeff Sheinberg <jeffsh@erols.com>
Reply to: