The issue I'm having is odd, as on ubuntu only 2.4.4.2 fixes the issue,
even though 2.4.2 works in lenny.
Here is a short quote from the upstream developers about this
inconsistency:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 09:38:58AM -0700, B. Bogart wrote:
>>> Hello Marcus,
>>>
>>> Seems unlikely that it would be a memory problem. I'm running the
>>> camera without a capture card at all, and powered off in between
>>> tests (when reattaching to various computers).
>>>
>>> The good news is that 2.4.4.2 works on ubuntu! I just compiled and
>>> recompiled gphoto2, and it now works fine.
>>>
>>> Hard to say why it was not working before, but it is certainly
>>> working in 2.4.4.2 on ubuntu.
>>>
>>> I still can't shake the thinking that it could be some
>>> ubuntu/intrepid shared library that is not compatible??
>>>
>>> Thanks for your help.
>
> The 2.4.4 was using some too-short timeouts which could have caused
> this behaviour.
>
> So not sure where the issue was.
>
> Ciao, Marcus
Martin Pitt wrote:
> Nice, then it seems we should upgrade to the new upstream version.
> I'll review the changelog between 2.4.2 and 2.4.4, if it's only bug
> fixes, it's adequate for jaunty.
>
> ** Changed in: libgphoto2 (Ubuntu) Status: New => In Progress
>
> ** Changed in: libgphoto2 (Ubuntu) Assignee: (unassigned) => Martin
> Pitt (pitti)
>
Hi Martin,
The issue I'm having is odd, as on ubuntu only 2.4.4.2 fixes the issue,
even though 2.4.2 works in lenny.
Here is a short quote from the upstream developers about this
inconsistency:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 09:38:58AM -0700, B. Bogart wrote:
>>> Hello Marcus,
>>>
>>> Seems unlikely that it would be a memory problem. I'm running the
>>> camera without a capture card at all, and powered off in between
>>> tests (when reattaching to various computers).
>>>
>>> The good news is that 2.4.4.2 works on ubuntu! I just compiled and
>>> recompiled gphoto2, and it now works fine.
>>>
>>> Hard to say why it was not working before, but it is certainly
>>> working in 2.4.4.2 on ubuntu.
>>>
>>> I still can't shake the thinking that it could be some
>>> ubuntu/intrepid shared library that is not compatible??
>>>
>>> Thanks for your help.
>
> The 2.4.4 was using some too-short timeouts which could have caused
> this behaviour.
>
> So not sure where the issue was.
>
> Ciao, Marcus
Martin Pitt wrote:
> Nice, then it seems we should upgrade to the new upstream version.
> I'll review the changelog between 2.4.2 and 2.4.4, if it's only bug
> fixes, it's adequate for jaunty.
>
> ** Changed in: libgphoto2 (Ubuntu) Status: New => In Progress
>
> ** Changed in: libgphoto2 (Ubuntu) Assignee: (unassigned) => Martin
> Pitt (pitti)
>