Re: Debian & the FSF Secure Boot petition
Dear d-i hackers, I've been contacted by Paul Wise about FSF campaign on
"secure boot" [1] (thanks Paul!). As observed by various commenters over
the net, it is indeed striking that no FOSS distros is in there. I plan
to contact the FSF asking that Debian is listed as an endorser of the
campaign.
As you are the Debian people working on our installer, I think it should
be done in agreement with you.
So, what do you think? Do you see any reason why Debian should /not/
endorse such a campaign? Are you aware of any other initiative on the
same vein that we should support to make our worries on that front
heard?
(Please Cc:-me on replies, as I'm not subscribed to -boot.
M-F-T header set accordingly.)
Many thanks in advance for your help,
Cheers.
[1] https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/statement
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences .. http://upsilon.cc/zack .. . . o
Debian Project Leader... @zack on identi.ca ...o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian & the FSF Secure Boot petition
Hi Stefano Zacchiroli writes: > Dear d-i hackers, I've been contacted by Paul Wise about FSF campaign on > "secure boot" [1] (thanks Paul!). As observed by various commenters over > the net, it is indeed striking that no FOSS distros is in there. I plan > to contact the FSF asking that Debian is listed as an endorser of the > campaign. > > As you are the Debian people working on our installer, I think it should > be done in agreement with you. > > So, what do you think? Do you see any reason why Debian should /not/ > endorse such a campaign? Are you aware of any other initiative on the > same vein that we should support to make our worries on that front > heard? I don't see any reason not to join. I actually was not yet aware of this campaign and just signed the statement myself. But on the other hand I'm just a sporadic contributor to the installer, so the word of others should have more weight. Gaudenz -- Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. ~ Samuel Beckett ~ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87wr3fid9h@meteor.durcheinandertal.bofh
Re: Debian & the FSF Secure Boot petition
Quoting Stefano Zacchiroli (lea...@debian.org): > Dear d-i hackers, I've been contacted by Paul Wise about FSF campaign on > "secure boot" [1] (thanks Paul!). As observed by various commenters over > the net, it is indeed striking that no FOSS distros is in there. I plan > to contact the FSF asking that Debian is listed as an endorser of the > campaign. > > As you are the Debian people working on our installer, I think it should > be done in agreement with you. > > So, what do you think? Do you see any reason why Debian should /not/ > endorse such a campaign? Are you aware of any other initiative on the > same vein that we should support to make our worries on that front > heard? I also discovered this campaign. I actually only heard very recently about the piece of that is this so-called Secured Boot. And I'll take this opportunity to endorse the campaign on a personal behalf. And, of course, I do not see any reason for Debian to NOT endorse it. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
d-i: Plans for beta 1?
Hello folks, I'm wondering how many changes still need a commit in the various d-i git repositories (ISTR at least Phil wanted to commit more changes), and also which of them want an upload. With the freeze approaching, it would probably be an idea to think about cutting a beta release soonish, don't you think? Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Processing of cdebconf_0.161_amd64.changes
cdebconf_0.161_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: cdebconf_0.161.dsc cdebconf_0.161.tar.gz cdebconf-priority_0.161_all.udeb cdebconf_0.161_amd64.deb cdebconf-gtk_0.161_amd64.deb libdebconfclient0_0.161_amd64.deb libdebconfclient0-dev_0.161_amd64.deb cdebconf-udeb_0.161_amd64.udeb libdebconfclient0-udeb_0.161_amd64.udeb cdebconf-text-udeb_0.161_amd64.udeb cdebconf-newt-udeb_0.161_amd64.udeb cdebconf-gtk-udeb_0.161_amd64.udeb Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon (running on host franck.debian.org) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1sdrp7-0004x6...@franck.debian.org
Bug#411585: marked as done (cdebconf: values for question not deleted on unregister)
Your message dated Sun, 10 Jun 2012 23:35:26 + with message-id and subject line Bug#411585: fixed in cdebconf 0.161 has caused the Debian Bug report #411585, regarding cdebconf: values for question not deleted on unregister to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 411585: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=411585 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: cdebconf Version: 0.113 If a question has been registered to a template, is given a value or the seen flag is set, and is later unregistered and then registered again (against the same or a different template), cdebconf keeps the old values that were set before it was unregistered. Joey Hess has checked that this behavior is different from debconf, but also says that the specs are also probably not clear on what the correct behavior should be. If this is changed, there should probably be a review of components that use unregister as they may rely in the current behavior. See this thread for background and details: http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2007/02/msg00615.html pgpycYmB0iSaC.pgp Description: PGP signature --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Source: cdebconf Source-Version: 0.161 We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of cdebconf, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive: cdebconf-gtk-udeb_0.161_amd64.udeb to main/c/cdebconf/cdebconf-gtk-udeb_0.161_amd64.udeb cdebconf-gtk_0.161_amd64.deb to main/c/cdebconf/cdebconf-gtk_0.161_amd64.deb cdebconf-newt-udeb_0.161_amd64.udeb to main/c/cdebconf/cdebconf-newt-udeb_0.161_amd64.udeb cdebconf-priority_0.161_all.udeb to main/c/cdebconf/cdebconf-priority_0.161_all.udeb cdebconf-text-udeb_0.161_amd64.udeb to main/c/cdebconf/cdebconf-text-udeb_0.161_amd64.udeb cdebconf-udeb_0.161_amd64.udeb to main/c/cdebconf/cdebconf-udeb_0.161_amd64.udeb cdebconf_0.161.dsc to main/c/cdebconf/cdebconf_0.161.dsc cdebconf_0.161.tar.gz to main/c/cdebconf/cdebconf_0.161.tar.gz cdebconf_0.161_amd64.deb to main/c/cdebconf/cdebconf_0.161_amd64.deb libdebconfclient0-dev_0.161_amd64.deb to main/c/cdebconf/libdebconfclient0-dev_0.161_amd64.deb libdebconfclient0-udeb_0.161_amd64.udeb to main/c/cdebconf/libdebconfclient0-udeb_0.161_amd64.udeb libdebconfclient0_0.161_amd64.deb to main/c/cdebconf/libdebconfclient0_0.161_amd64.deb A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is attached. Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed. If you have further comments please address them to 411...@bugs.debian.org, and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate. Debian distribution maintenance software pp. Regis Boudin (supplier of updated cdebconf package) (This message was generated automatically at their request; if you believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing ftpmas...@debian.org) -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.8 Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 14:33:35 +0200 Source: cdebconf Binary: cdebconf cdebconf-gtk libdebconfclient0 libdebconfclient0-dev cdebconf-udeb cdebconf-priority libdebconfclient0-udeb cdebconf-text-udeb cdebconf-slang-udeb cdebconf-newt-udeb cdebconf-gtk-udeb Architecture: source all amd64 Version: 0.161 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Debian Install System Team Changed-By: Regis Boudin Description: cdebconf - Debian Configuration Management System (C-implementation) cdebconf-gtk - Gtk+ frontend for Debian Configuration Management System cdebconf-gtk-udeb - Gtk+ frontend for Debian Configuration Management System (udeb) cdebconf-newt-udeb - Newt frontend for Debian Configuration Management System (udeb) cdebconf-priority - Change debconf priority (udeb) cdebconf-slang-udeb - S-Lang frontend for Debian Configuration Management System (udeb) cdebconf-text-udeb - Plain text frontend for Debian Configuration Management System (udeb) cdebconf-udeb - Debian Configuration Management System (C-implementation) (udeb) libdebconfclient0 - Debian Configuration Management System (C-implementation library) libdebconfclient0-dev - Development files for cdebconf libdebconfclient0-udeb - Debian Configuration Management System (C-implementation) (udeb) Closes: 411585 Changes: cdebconf (0.161) unstable; urgency=low . [Christian Perrier] * Mark all debconf templates as translatable (except those for internal use) Use D-I sublevel 6 for new templates . [Regis Boudin] * When FGETing a non-existing flag, return false, ins
cdebconf_0.161_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable
Accepted: cdebconf-gtk-udeb_0.161_amd64.udeb to main/c/cdebconf/cdebconf-gtk-udeb_0.161_amd64.udeb cdebconf-gtk_0.161_amd64.deb to main/c/cdebconf/cdebconf-gtk_0.161_amd64.deb cdebconf-newt-udeb_0.161_amd64.udeb to main/c/cdebconf/cdebconf-newt-udeb_0.161_amd64.udeb cdebconf-priority_0.161_all.udeb to main/c/cdebconf/cdebconf-priority_0.161_all.udeb cdebconf-text-udeb_0.161_amd64.udeb to main/c/cdebconf/cdebconf-text-udeb_0.161_amd64.udeb cdebconf-udeb_0.161_amd64.udeb to main/c/cdebconf/cdebconf-udeb_0.161_amd64.udeb cdebconf_0.161.dsc to main/c/cdebconf/cdebconf_0.161.dsc cdebconf_0.161.tar.gz to main/c/cdebconf/cdebconf_0.161.tar.gz cdebconf_0.161_amd64.deb to main/c/cdebconf/cdebconf_0.161_amd64.deb libdebconfclient0-dev_0.161_amd64.deb to main/c/cdebconf/libdebconfclient0-dev_0.161_amd64.deb libdebconfclient0-udeb_0.161_amd64.udeb to main/c/cdebconf/libdebconfclient0-udeb_0.161_amd64.udeb libdebconfclient0_0.161_amd64.deb to main/c/cdebconf/libdebconfclient0_0.161_amd64.deb Changes: cdebconf (0.161) unstable; urgency=low . [Christian Perrier] * Mark all debconf templates as translatable (except those for internal use) Use D-I sublevel 6 for new templates . [Regis Boudin] * When FGETing a non-existing flag, return false, instead of an error. This is closer to the debconf behaviour, although cdebconf cannot be used to set arbitrary flag. * dpkg-preconfigure: check for the existence of apt-extracttemplates before trying to use it. * install a cdebconf_text.h, exporting useful macros and function for plugins. * Pass LDFLAGS when linking shared libs as well as programs. * Fix passing of DPKG_MAINTSCRIPT_* to be multi-arch compliant in dpkg-reconfigure. * Process triggers caused by dpkg-reconfigure. cf #560317. * Remove questions if after unregister or purge there's no owner left. Closes: #411585. Override entries for your package: cdebconf-gtk-udeb_0.161_amd64.udeb - optional debian-installer cdebconf-gtk_0.161_amd64.deb - optional admin cdebconf-newt-udeb_0.161_amd64.udeb - optional debian-installer cdebconf-priority_0.161_all.udeb - standard debian-installer cdebconf-text-udeb_0.161_amd64.udeb - optional debian-installer cdebconf-udeb_0.161_amd64.udeb - standard debian-installer cdebconf_0.161.dsc - source utils cdebconf_0.161_amd64.deb - extra utils libdebconfclient0-dev_0.161_amd64.deb - optional libdevel libdebconfclient0-udeb_0.161_amd64.udeb - optional debian-installer libdebconfclient0_0.161_amd64.deb - optional libs Announcing to debian-devel-chan...@lists.debian.org Closing bugs: 411585 Thank you for your contribution to Debian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1sdrfk-0006az...@franck.debian.org
cdebconf override disparity
There are disparities between your recently accepted upload and the override file for the following file(s): cdebconf-gtk_0.161_amd64.deb: package says priority is extra, override says optional. Please note that a list of new sections were recently added to the archive: cli-mono, database, debug, fonts, gnu-r, gnustep, haskell, httpd, java, kernel, lisp, localization, ocaml, php, ruby, vcs, video, xfce, zope. At this time a script was used to reclassify packages into these sections. If this is the case, please only reply to this email if the new section is inappropriate, otherwise please update your package at the next upload. Either the package or the override file is incorrect. If you think the override is correct and the package wrong please fix the package so that this disparity is fixed in the next upload. If you feel the override is incorrect then please file a bug against ftp.debian.org and explain why. Please INCLUDE the list of packages as seen above, or we won't be able to deal with your request due to missing information. Please make sure that the subject of the bug you file follows the following format: Subject: override: BINARY1:section/priority, [...], BINARYX:section/priority Include the justification for the change in the body of the mail please. [NB: this is an automatically generated mail; if you already filed a bug and have not received a response yet, please ignore this mail. Your bug needs to be processed by a human and will be in due course, but until then the installer will send these automated mails; sorry.] -- Debian distribution maintenance software (This message was generated automatically; if you believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing ftpmas...@debian.org) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1sdrfd-0006ey...@franck.debian.org
Como criar dua-boot no meu computador Debian e Windows
Olá pessoal, estou com dúvida de como criar dual-boot *Windows 7 (32bits)*e *Debian 6.0 (32bits)*, queria saber como instalar e configurar sem perde nenhum tipo de arquivo no meu computador passo a passo, por favor! *Observação:* Eu já tenho dual-boot no meu computador (Ubuntu e o Windows 7), mas eu estou pretendendo trocar Ubuntu para Debian futuramente mas eu pretendo testa o sistema antes de deletar Ubuntu. Aguardo a resposta!
Re: d-i: Plans for beta 1?
On 11.06.2012 03:29, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > Hello folks, > > I'm wondering how many changes still need a commit in the various d-i > git repositories (ISTR at least Phil wanted to commit more changes), and > also which of them want an upload. I want to upload current version of busybox (plus a few trivial upstream bugfixes) to unstable (it is currently in experimental due to releasing of d-i alpha and due to one change I tried to do for about a year, and which finally appears to be working fine (dropping a debian-specific patch which did some evil things). I prepared it locally and tested, don't see any issues. > With the freeze approaching, it would probably be an idea to think about > cutting a beta release soonish, don't you think? Especially having in mind the alpha fiasco due to apt bug, yes. Thanks, /mjt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fd555f6.4080...@msgid.tls.msk.ru
Re: d-i: Plans for beta 1?
On 11.06.2012 06:20, Michael Tokarev wrote: > I want to upload current version of busybox (plus a few trivial > upstream bugfixes) to unstable (it is currently in experimental > due to releasing of d-i alpha and due to one change I tried to > do for about a year, and which finally appears to be working > fine (dropping a debian-specific patch which did some evil > things). To clarify: the patch which was dropped does not affect d-i, since the config option where that code is used is not enabled in the udeb build, it only affects initramfs-tools. Thanks, /mjt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fd5568e.5000...@msgid.tls.msk.ru
Re: d-i: Plans for beta 1?
Quoting Cyril Brulebois (k...@debian.org): > Hello folks, > > I'm wondering how many changes still need a commit in the various d-i > git repositories (ISTR at least Phil wanted to commit more changes), and > also which of them want an upload. It's likely that a mass upload is needed for l10n purposes. Also, I think that a beta is the moment where I should decide about which languages I drop (http://www.perrier.eu.org/weblog/2012/06/09#di-deactivation-status-8) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
