FS#17500 - [lirc] blocking kernel upgrade

Attached to Project: Arch Linux
Opened by Shem Valentine (xvalentinex) - Monday, 14 December 2009, 08:55 GMT
Last edited by Jan de Groot (JGC) - Saturday, 19 December 2009, 21:44 GMT
Task Type Bug Report
Category Upstream Bugs
Status Closed
Assigned To Hugo Doria (hdoria)
Architecture All
Severity Very Low
Priority Normal
Reported Version
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 1
Private No

Details

Description:
lirc blocks kernel26 upgrade to 2.6.32.

Additional info:
My apologies if this is a frivolous bug report, as I realize kernel 2.6.32 is in testing. Just wanted to make sure that the people that need to know are aware.
This task depends upon

Closed by  Jan de Groot (JGC)
Saturday, 19 December 2009, 21:44 GMT
Reason for closing:  Fixed
Comment by Ionut Biru (wonder) - Monday, 14 December 2009, 10:51 GMT
http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2009-December/014525.html

"Broken binary modules:
- lirc still needs to be patched, though no fix available yet."
Comment by Tiago Teixeira (TigTex) - Monday, 14 December 2009, 14:00 GMT
I can confirm this. In other to upgrade we need to remove lirc. Re-installing is not possible, not compactible with 2.6.32
Comment by Shem Valentine (xvalentinex) - Tuesday, 15 December 2009, 16:00 GMT
Ahh, I should have checked the mailing list, my apoligies.

According to the lirc mailing list, someone has commited a patch to allow for compile, this was commited by the lirc devs. I have attached the patch, I need to run to work, but I'll test it when I get home.

See post here: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_name=4B187EAF.3080206%40gmail.com

EDIT: I've attached the diff from the lirc CVS repository which differs from the attached patch from the mailing list. I can't seem to delete the previous attachment, so this patch is appended with _dev_backport.

EDIT2: Doh, attached the wrong file. Could someone delete the other attachments for me?
Comment by Ionut Biru (wonder) - Friday, 18 December 2009, 21:53 GMT
seems that this was fixed no?

Loading...