And here's the patch for partman-md to ensure that flags are exclusive
where reasonable...
--
David Härdeman
Index: debian/changelog
===
--- debian/changelog (revision 45641)
+++ debian/changelog (working copy)
@@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
+pa
Here's the patch to make sure that superfluous flags are not set.
--
David Härdeman
Index: debian/changelog
===
--- debian/changelog (revision 45633)
+++ debian/changelog (working copy)
@@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
+partman-lvm (52) UNRELEASED;
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 06:14:19PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 02:47:04AM +0100, David Härdeman wrote:
diff -ur ./parted-1.7.1.orig/libparted/labels/mac.c
./parted-1.7.1/libparted/labels/mac.c
--- ./parted-1.7.1.orig/libparted/labels/mac.c 2006-05-25 19:28:55.0
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> clone 397973 -1 -2
Bug#397973: [powerpci/mac] partman-md appears to not write back the raid flag
to partitions.
Bug 397973 cloned as bugs 413183-413184.
> severity 397973 normal
Bug#397973: [powerpci/mac] partman-md appears to not write back the raid
On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 02:47:04AM +0100, David Härdeman wrote:
> diff -ur ./parted-1.7.1.orig/libparted/labels/mac.c
> ./parted-1.7.1/libparted/labels/mac.c
> --- ./parted-1.7.1.orig/libparted/labels/mac.c2006-05-25
> 19:28:55.0 +0200
> +++ ./parted-1.7.1/libparted/labels/mac.c
The attached patch changes libparted so that it doesn't corrupt the mac
parition table when flags that alter the system_name entry are
set/unset. This fixes the error for me (using a mac partition table on a
i386 machine).
Some minor fixes remain in partman-md and partman-lvm (lvm, swap and
r
Accepted:
aboot-installer_0.0.25.dsc
to pool/main/a/aboot-installer/aboot-installer_0.0.25.dsc
aboot-installer_0.0.25.tar.gz
to pool/main/a/aboot-installer/aboot-installer_0.0.25.tar.gz
aboot-installer_0.0.25_alpha.udeb
to pool/main/a/aboot-installer/aboot-installer_0.0.25_alpha.udeb
Overr
aboot-installer_0.0.25_alpha.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
aboot-installer_0.0.25.dsc
aboot-installer_0.0.25.tar.gz
aboot-installer_0.0.25_alpha.udeb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subjec
On Wednesday 28 February 2007 21:42, Παναγιώτης Παπασωτηρίου wrote:
> Comments/Problems:
> PROBLEM WITH SATA DISK DRIVES: Installation failed at first try; the
> installer booted from the CD as expected, and installation went ok
> until the "Install base system" phase. Strangely enough, I was not a
I'm submitting the following patch, result of many corrections thanks to tests
on all release architectures and kfreebsd-i386.
Seriously, this is an untested patch which I think is quite important to apply
for Etch. We released Sarge without the PHP version recommended by upstream,
and thankful
Your message dated Sat, 03 Mar 2007 00:09:02 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#413060: (no subject)
has caused the attached Bug report 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 responsib
On Friday 02 March 2007 22:01, Celejar wrote:
> I'm just curious - is there a technical reason that this can't be done,
> or is it just too much work for the install team?
No hard technical reason. Maybe it will be implemented at some point, but
I doubt it will ever be a priority.
--
To UNSUBS
Your message dated Fri, 02 Mar 2007 23:55:19 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#410143: Dell XPS M1210 laptop installation report
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the
Your message dated Fri, 02 Mar 2007 23:51:51 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#410122:
has caused the attached Bug report 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 reop
Your message dated Fri, 02 Mar 2007 23:44:28 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#410105:installation-report
has caused the attached Bug report 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 res
Your message dated Fri, 02 Mar 2007 23:40:06 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#410087: SATA+PATA on MS-6728 Neo2 865PE leads to oops on
boot
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If thi
* Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-02-07 08:38]:
> I first tried the di-nslu2.bin image from the installer nightly
> builds, as of midday 2007-02-03. The kernel sitting next to the
> image was marked as 2.6.18-4 so I assume it was new enough that it
> ought to have had a working network
Your message dated Fri, 02 Mar 2007 23:29:36 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#410041: Install fails on VIA VT8251-based SATA controller
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is
Your message dated Fri, 02 Mar 2007 23:26:25 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#410022: installation report
has caused the attached Bug report 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 re
Your message dated Fri, 02 Mar 2007 23:13:47 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#409965: installation-report SUN Ultra 10
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Your message dated Fri, 02 Mar 2007 23:07:37 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#409951: installation fails
has caused the attached Bug report 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 res
Your message dated Fri, 02 Mar 2007 23:04:20 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#409886: Installation report
has caused the attached Bug report 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 re
Your message dated Fri, 02 Mar 2007 22:59:53 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#409716: Successful base-install on Mac Cube 450
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the ca
On Saturday 03 February 2007 17:49, Jacob L. Anawalt wrote:
> I mean that I have been using pata_marvell.c in linux-2.6.19-rc1-mm1 in
> the system I first tested with in October 2006. The pata_marvell.c
> driver has been working for me, so I didn't need to wait for Marvell to
> do the honours. Actu
Op 01-03-2007 om 17:10 schreef Durk Strooisma:
> Hi all,
>
> Does anybody know of a way to preseed the question "Do you want to return to
> the partitioning menu" when no swap space was defined?
>
> Any value for "d-i partman-basicfilesystems/no_swap boolean" makes d-i enter
> a loop... Maybe the
>
> I was sad that you chose not to meet with me at FOSDEM, and that when i
> greeted you in the hall outside the debian room, you chose to ignore me and
> pass by me looking the other was, as well as the way you chose to refuse to
> participate in the discussion concerning my ideas for the kernel
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 19:22:36 +0100
Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> > 4) About the guided partitioning - as far as I could make out from the
> > prompts, lvm was only an option if I gave the installer the whole disk,
> > which I couldn't do, so I settled for regular guided partitioni
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 06:26:19PM +0100, Josef Wolf wrote:
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 08:59:01AM +0100, David Härdeman wrote:
On Fri, March 2, 2007 1:17, Josef Wolf said:
> The error occures on the first reboot (before any of my scripts
> mentioned above come into the game).
>
> fsck.ext3: Unabl
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reopen 412982
Bug#412982: installation-reports: Enabling 'sudo' in installer skips setting
root password and breaks desktop root tasks
Bug reopened, originator not changed.
> reassign 412982 gnome
Bug#412982: installation-reports: Enabling 'sudo' in i
reassign 412948 partman-md
forcemerge 412948 393728
thanks
Hi,
and thanks for your bug report. Unfortunately the combination of crypto
and RAID is known to be buggy (see bug reports #393728, #398464,
#407905, #397872). Unfortunately it also seems unlikely that this will
be fixed before the r
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 412948 partman-md
Bug#412948: Bug in Etch debian-installer
Bug reassigned from package `installation-reports' to `partman-md'.
> forcemerge 412948 393728
Bug#412948: Bug in Etch debian-installer
Bug#393728: dm-crypt on raid does not play nicel
On Friday 02 March 2007 20:24, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> On 3/2/07, Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thursday 01 March 2007 16:17, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> > > When you enable sudo in the installer (via expert mode), a password
> > > for the root user isn't set. Then, if you (for exam
On 3/2/07, Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Gnome date/time applet asks for the root password. The user
> password doesn't work.
Well, you could have been a bit more clear about what "it" was then. How
were we supposed to guess this was about a Gnome applet?
Yes, sorry. The 'desktop
reopen 412982
reassign 412982 gnome
thanks
> The Gnome date/time applet asks for the root password. The user
> password doesn't work.
this sounds like a gnome bug then, it really should be able to handle the case
with the root account disabled but sudo availible.
On 3/2/07, Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thursday 01 March 2007 16:17, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> When you enable sudo in the installer (via expert mode), a password for
> the root user isn't set. Then, if you (for example) want to adjust date
> & time, it asks for the root password, wh
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 413065 installation-reports
Bug#413065: Debian Installer doesn't change partition types
Warning: Unknown package 'd-i'
Bug reassigned from package `d-i' to `installation-reports'.
> --
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need a
Package: d-i
Version: testing
when installing debian testing [ 2 monthes old version ] and formating
non-linux partitions to be the root / the installer doesn't convert
the partition type to Linux and grub will not install if the target
partition was NTFS for example.
i don't know if this proble
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 08:59:01AM +0100, David Härdeman wrote:
> On Fri, March 2, 2007 1:17, Josef Wolf said:
> > The error occures on the first reboot (before any of my scripts
> > mentioned above come into the game).
> >
> > fsck.ext3: Unable to resolve 'UUID=x'
> > fsck died with ex
On Friday 02 March 2007 03:11, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> What is the intended difference in semantics between RESIZE_PARTITION
> and VIRTUAL_RESIZE_PARTITION? In the resize_partition() function these
> are distinguished by the open_filesystem flag which implied to me that
> in the latter case we woul
On Fri, March 2, 2007 1:17, Josef Wolf said:
> The error occures on the first reboot (before any of my scripts
> mentioned above come into the game).
>
> fsck.ext3: Unable to resolve 'UUID=x'
> fsck died with exit status 8
If you get this error on the first reboot, then you have alread
40 matches
Mail list logo