BFS for the power kernel - Page 31 - maemo.org

Active Topics

Firefox with Leste (10)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by teroyk - 3 days, 9 hrs ago
more...

Page 31 of 31

« First

< Prev

Thread Tools

iDont	2011-09-28 , 10:40
Posts: 268 \| Thanked: 1,053 times \| Joined on May 2010 @ The Netherlands	#301

Originally Posted by Radicalz38

hello iDont just wanna ask is the call distortion problem still exist on the current builds?

Nope, we've reverted back to BFS v0.330, which doesn't have the issue.

--

A little update: I'll most likely push kernel-bfs either this evening or tomorrow evening to Maemo's repositories. I haven't heard anything back from Tigerite yet regarding pushing the UBIFS patches to our git tree, but I suppose it isn't too much of a problem that the git tree will lack one patch which the official release does include. Those interested in the patch can find it in the source package anyway. If desired, I can always push the patch myself (with proper credits of course) later.

Quote & Reply |

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to iDont For This Useful Post:
Estel, hawaii, Netweaver

	Estel	2011-09-28 , 10:44
	Posts: 5,028 \| Thanked: 8,613 times \| Joined on Mar 2011	#302

Thanks very much, iDont! I think your approach is best compromise. Will test it and report back.

// Edit - scratch the following, iDont beat me up to it

Originally Posted by Estel

BTW, in meantime, the current .deb are of version "without" call distortion problems, i.e. pre-release of thing that will go into repos? Just asking to know if I should "watch" for distortions, or, most likely, not.

__________________
N900's aluminum backcover / body replacement
-
N900's HDMI-Out
-
Camera cover MOD
-
Measure battery's real capacity on-device
-
TrueCrypt 7.1 | ereswap | bnf
-
Hardware's mods research is costly. To support my work, please consider donating. Thank You!

Last edited by Estel; 2011-09-28 at 10:47.

Quote & Reply |

The Following User Says Thank You to Estel For This Useful Post:
iDont

iDont	2011-09-28 , 10:50
Posts: 268 \| Thanked: 1,053 times \| Joined on May 2010 @ The Netherlands	#303

Originally Posted by Estel

Thanks very much, iDont! I think your approach is best compromise. Will test it and report back.

Thank you, much appreciated

Originally Posted by Estel

BTW, in meantime, the current .deb are of version "without" call distortion problems, i.e. pre-release of thing that will go into repos? Just asking to know if I should "watch" for distortions, or, most likely, not.

The debs on kernel-bfs's garage page are as how kernel-bfs will be released to the repos.
However, if the KP49 pre-release / the site I should keep an eye on has introduced new changes, then those will be merged into kernel-bfs' release as well. I'll check for those changes this evening too.

Edit: just noticed your edit

. I'll leave my reply in here for others though.

Last edited by iDont; 2011-09-28 at 10:53.

Quote & Reply |

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to iDont For This Useful Post:
Estel, Netweaver

Netweaver	2011-09-28 , 12:55
Posts: 323 \| Thanked: 180 times \| Joined on Oct 2009 @ Gent, Belgium	#304

thanks. Will this auto-upgrade/overwrite older manual installs of kernel-bfs (bfs6) people (including me) have ? And modify the multiboot files ?

Or will we have to remove things manually first ?

Thanks again for all the effort !

Quote & Reply |

iDont	2011-09-29 , 11:05
Posts: 268 \| Thanked: 1,053 times \| Joined on May 2010 @ The Netherlands	#305

Originally Posted by Netweaver

thanks. Will this auto-upgrade/overwrite older manual installs of kernel-bfs (bfs6) people (including me) have ? And modify the multiboot files ?

Or will we have to remove things manually first ?

Thanks again for all the effort !

It doesn't matter whether you've installed the debs manually or via a package manager, upgrading the package (again either manually or via a package manager) will go fine.

Regarding multiboot: in older kernel-bfs releases you had to create the multiboot entry yourself. If you have done so, then you'll need to remove it manually too.
By the way, not removing the manually created multiboot entry won't even cause any trouble; AFAIK, you'll only end up with kernel-bfs twice in your multiboot list

Quote & Reply |

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to iDont For This Useful Post:
Estel, Netweaver

	zeljkobo12	2011-09-29 , 13:10
	Posts: 18 \| Thanked: 13 times \| Joined on Jul 2011 @ Novi Sad, Serbia	#306

Sorry for noob question, but when I try to install fcam-drivers-bfs_1.0.7-2_armel.deb :

dpkg: considering removing fcam-drivers in favour of fcam-drivers-bfs ...
dpkg: no, cannot proceed with removal of fcam-drivers (--auto-deconfigure will help):
blessn900 depends on fcam-drivers (>= 1.0.6-1)
fcam-drivers is to be removed.
dpkg: regarding .../fcam-drivers-bfs_1.0.7-2_armel.deb containing fcam-drivers-bfs:
fcam-drivers-bfs conflicts with fcam-drivers
fcam-drivers (version 1.0.7-2) is present and installed.
dpkg: error processing /home/user/MyDocs/bfs/fcam-drivers-bfs_1.0.7-2_armel.deb (--install):
conflicting packages - not installing fcam-drivers-bfs
Errors were encountered while processing:
/home/user/MyDocs/bfs/fcam-drivers-bfs_1.0.7-2_armel.deb

What is correct way of installing fcam drivers for bfs?

Quote & Reply |

iDont	2011-09-29 , 16:52
Posts: 268 \| Thanked: 1,053 times \| Joined on May 2010 @ The Netherlands	#307

Originally Posted by zeljkobo12

Sorry for noob question, but when I try to install fcam-drivers-bfs_1.0.7-2_armel.deb :

dpkg: considering removing fcam-drivers in favour of fcam-drivers-bfs ...
dpkg: no, cannot proceed with removal of fcam-drivers (--auto-deconfigure will help):
blessn900 depends on fcam-drivers (>= 1.0.6-1)
fcam-drivers is to be removed.
dpkg: regarding .../fcam-drivers-bfs_1.0.7-2_armel.deb containing fcam-drivers-bfs:
fcam-drivers-bfs conflicts with fcam-drivers
fcam-drivers (version 1.0.7-2) is present and installed.
dpkg: error processing /home/user/MyDocs/bfs/fcam-drivers-bfs_1.0.7-2_armel.deb (--install):
conflicting packages - not installing fcam-drivers-bfs
Errors were encountered while processing:
/home/user/MyDocs/bfs/fcam-drivers-bfs_1.0.7-2_armel.deb

What is correct way of installing fcam drivers for bfs?

You did try to install it the correct way

. There's a little catch however.

Fcam-drivers-bfs conflicts with, replaces, and provides fcam-drivers. You appear to have an application installed which depends on the fcam-drivers (namely blessn900). Prior to installing fcam-drivers-bfs, fcam-drivers needs to be removed (since we try to replace it), Now this application that depends on fcam-drivers starts to complain, even though we're about to install a package that provides the same functionality!

You can make dpkg automatically deconfigure and reconfigure the applications that depend on fcam-drivers, so that the those applications won't complain in the little time span the fcam-drivers package is removed. To do this, you'll have to run:

Code:

dpkg -i --auto-deconfigure fcam-drivers-bfs_1.0.7-2_armel.deb

--
edit: the most ideal situation is that the official fcam-drivers will get support for kernel-bfs. But this can't be done before kernel-bfs is pushed to the repositories since fcam-drivers will depend on kernel-bfs-headers then. Until that time, we'll have to do with our own package

. I'll try to contact the maintainer of the fcam-drivers package when kernel-bfs hits the repositories.

--

Update: Kernel-bfs has just hit the repos! The new kernel-bfs [Announce] thread can be found here:
http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?p=1099211

Last edited by iDont; 2011-09-29 at 20:28.