[Bug 280251] pilot-link configuration is incomplete
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: pilot-link configuration is incomplete
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=280251
------- Additional Comments From redhat-bugzilla(a)krp.org.uk 2008-07-05 22:19 EST -------
(In reply to comment #176)
> I'm back now. Looking at patch. The devel branch removed the 60-pilot.rules
> file, was this intended?
Yes, the patch should remove it from all branches (see comment #165). I guess it
was put there to do a better job than the 60-libpisock.rules from upstream, but
following recent changes it actually does a worse job (and if you follow the
instructions in the current release RPM and use it as provided, will fail to
work. Nice.).
Instead, the patch updates the README.Fedora with instructions on how to modify
the upstream provided 60-libpisock.rules - which is shipped in the RPM - to make
it work with Fedora.
This also means that should users need to report problems upstream they're more
familiar with what they've done, which is closer to what upstream expect, and
less likely to confound upstream with different-for-no-reason Fedora configs.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
15 years, 10 months
[Bug 280251] pilot-link configuration is incomplete
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: pilot-link configuration is incomplete
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=280251
------- Additional Comments From alexl(a)users.sourceforge.net 2008-07-05 21:52 EST -------
(In reply to comment #175)
> Could my last patch be applied? Please? ;)
I'm back now. Looking at patch. The devel branch removed the 60-pilot.rules
file, was this intended?
> For F8, at least people could test in conjunction with the hal and hal-info in
> updates-testing. I don't expect there to be any problems. I don't think we need
> to wait for anything else from hal/hal-info.
> Also a reminder that it fixes documentation for both F8 and F9 which is actively
> causing confusion for users and pilot-link maintainers (see the links in comment
> #165 ...and another thread has just sprung up on pilot-link-general).
>
> Fedora enabling libusb by default has foisted this code upon a much larger user
> base (for the better, IMHO); this has, as one might expect, exposed some
> compatibility regressions. Getting to the root of these problems would be much
> easier if we put our packages in order, because at the moment the first
> suspicion is - not without basis - broken Fedora config/docs/packaging.
Agreed.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
15 years, 10 months
[Bug 280251] pilot-link configuration is incomplete
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: pilot-link configuration is incomplete
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=280251
------- Additional Comments From redhat-bugzilla(a)krp.org.uk 2008-07-05 11:22 EST -------
Could my last patch be applied? Please? ;)
For F8, at least people could test in conjunction with the hal and hal-info in
updates-testing. I don't expect there to be any problems. I don't think we need
to wait for anything else from hal/hal-info.
Also a reminder that it fixes documentation for both F8 and F9 which is actively
causing confusion for users and pilot-link maintainers (see the links in comment
#165 ...and another thread has just sprung up on pilot-link-general).
Fedora enabling libusb by default has foisted this code upon a much larger user
base (for the better, IMHO); this has, as one might expect, exposed some
compatibility regressions. Getting to the root of these problems would be much
easier if we put our packages in order, because at the moment the first
suspicion is - not without basis - broken Fedora config/docs/packaging.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
15 years, 10 months
