First Last Prev Next    No search results available      Search page      Enter new bug
Bug#: 110769
Alias:
Product:
Component:
Status: RESOLVED
Resolution: FIXED
Assigned To: Gentoo Developers for the x86 Architecture <x86@gentoo.org>
Hardware:
OS:
Version:
Priority:
Severity:
Reporter: Joe Stroller <stroller@bigfoot.com>
Add CC:
CC:
Remove selected CCs
URL:
Summary:
Status Whiteboard:
Keywords:

Filename Description Type Creator Created Size Actions
Create a New Attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.) View All

Bug 110769 depends on: Show dependency tree
Bug 110769 blocks:
Votes: 0    Show votes for this bug    Vote for this bug

Additional Comments: (this is where you put emerge --info)


Not eligible to see or edit group visibility for this bug.






View Bug Activity   |   Format For Printing   |   XML   |   Clone This Bug

Description:   Opened: 2005-10-28 23:56 0000 
I have just emerged pciutils-2.2.0-r1 & it works ok for me here.

It resolves an issue I was seeing with `lspci -x > foo && lspci -F foo` not working.

As documented in this mailing list thread, the bug is now fixed upstream:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.user/144288


Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.

------- Comment #1 From SpanKY 2005-10-29 03:10:29 0000 ------- 
i dont think it's quite ready for stable yet seeing as how it's been in portage
for like only 2 weeks now

------- Comment #2 From Joe Stroller 2005-10-29 11:12:37 0000 ------- 
I wasn't expecting an immediate fix, just opened this as a "works for me"
datapoint & so that others 
could find the `lspci -x`, `lspci -F` issue if they searched for a bug.

Incidentally, 2.1.11 puts lspci in a different location, just in case you
didn't know:

$ which lspci
/sbin/lspci
$ lspci --version
lspci version 2.1.11

   (emerge new version in separate terminal)

$ which lspci
/usr/sbin/lspci
$ /usr/sbin/lspci --version
lspci version 2.2.0
$

------- Comment #3 From Christoph Gysin 2005-10-29 12:17:14 0000 ------- 
I also confirm that "lspci -F" now works with 2.2.0

As this is not a critical issue and 2.2.0 beeing available through a masked
ebuild, I'm fine with the situation right now.

------- Comment #4 From Mark Loeser 2005-11-24 17:32:29 0000 ------- 
vapier: any major issues with 2.2.0-r1 come up, or you think its safe to mark
stable?

------- Comment #5 From SpanKY 2005-11-24 23:41:58 0000 ------- 
i havent seen any reports

------- Comment #6 From Mark Loeser 2005-11-26 00:36:03 0000 ------- 
stable on x86, thanks
First Last Prev Next    No search results available      Search page      Enter new bug