Hi,
Daniel Baumann wrote (12 Jun 2012 13:53:28 GMT) :
> what i like:
> * feedback if current live-boot and live-boot from experimental
> work as expected (in particular wrt/ persistency) in (otherwise)
> unmodified wheezy and/or sid live-systems (built with live-build
> 3.x)
I doubt I will find time before DebCamp to test this,
since I have no such test setup ready.
> misunderstanding solved?
OK.
To clarify on my side: when asked for regression testing, I tested
things that I've seen working previously. And I've never tested the
sid + live-build 3.x kind of setup. That's why I tested for
regressions against (something very close to) a setup that previously
worked, and reported the regression I found.
This being said, I fully understand that, once I've reported
a possible regression, someone must now check if the regression can be
reproduced in "cleaner" environments. This is the simplest way to see
if the regression was introduced into live-boot by your recent recent
refactoring etc. work, or into my "unclean" test environment by
external changes.
>> If I used a "proper" initramfs-tools backport to do my tests of the
>> live-boot you pushed to experimental, would you care about my report,
>> or am I just wasting my time trying to help you test and debug your
>> latest work?
> absolutely; the squeeze + backports (kernel, initramfs, klibc) is a
> priority - we do support and encurage people to use live-{boot,config}
> from stable+1 on stable.
This is close enough to what we use at Tails to allow me, I hope, to
test this before DebCamp.
Cheers,
--
intrigeri
| GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc
| OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-live-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/8562apq1si....@boum.org
