Frans Pop wrote:
> Note that with my old, apt-setup would only default to using a mirror and
> thus time out. Your patch was intended to avoid that time out (which is
> fine), but at the cost of breaking the normal case. IMO timing out in
> situations that occur only rarely is even somewhat acce
On Sat, Sep 22, 2007 at 02:04:27AM +0200, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
> Just a quick reminder: the next Debian Installer IRC meeting is
> happening the very next Wednesday, which will be the 27th of September
> at 20:00 UTC.
*ahem*
The meeting will be on Wednesday, the *26th* of September. Hope you all
Your message dated Mon, 24 Sep 2007 19:02:02 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#443831: fixed in apt-setup 1:0.28
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 y
Accepted:
apt-cdrom-setup_0.28_all.udeb
to pool/main/a/apt-setup/apt-cdrom-setup_0.28_all.udeb
apt-mirror-setup_0.28_all.udeb
to pool/main/a/apt-setup/apt-mirror-setup_0.28_all.udeb
apt-setup-udeb_0.28_all.udeb
to pool/main/a/apt-setup/apt-setup-udeb_0.28_all.udeb
apt-setup_0.28.dsc
to poo
On Monday 24 September 2007, you wrote:
> Is there a reason why you chose to make apt-setup look at netcfg's
> question instead of just checking for a default route?
No, there is not. I basically did not have the "no NIC present" use case in
mind.
> If asking the question interactively does not
Chris Bell wrote:
>Trying a reload on the same box in "expert" mode from 4.0r1 DVD with 128M
> RAM still crashes before the end of installation, with the first hint of
> trouble being a message that no swap was activated, although the hard disc
> was partitioned with about 246M swap partition.
I'm reopening this bug because the fix was not implemented reliably
and had to be reverted. See #442891 and #402645.
IMHO testing for a configured network interface is the only
semi-reliable way to approach this. Digging around in netcfg's internals
is messy, creates a binding between apt-setup an
apt-setup_0.28_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
apt-setup_0.28.dsc
apt-setup_0.28.tar.gz
apt-setup-udeb_0.28_all.udeb
apt-mirror-setup_0.28_all.udeb
apt-cdrom-setup_0.28_all.udeb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.8
> reopen 402645
Bug#402645: debian-installer: Shouldn't complain about unavailability of apt
archives when network is not configured
'reopen' may be inappropriate when a bug has been c
Sending to right bug this time..
- Forwarded message from Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
From: Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 14:43:09 -0400
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: reopen
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-11)
I'm reopening this bug because the fix was not im
Frans Pop wrote:
> Getting the question asked interactively does _not_ set the seen flag, which
> means that currently with a netinst install at default priority you do not
> get a mirror.
Is there a reason why you chose to make apt-setup look at netcfg's
question instead of just checking for a
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tags 345317 + wontfix
Bug#345317: should distinguing between ABLE and Netrom firmware on
arm/netwinder (footbridge)
There were no tags set.
Tags added: wontfix
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug t
Package: apt-setup
Severity: serious
Version: 1:0.27
The check added by Joey to see if the DHCP question was asked is broken.
Getting the question asked interactively does _not_ set the seen flag, which
means that currently with a netinst install at default priority you do not
get a mirror.
s
Your message dated Mon, 24 Sep 2007 13:52:51 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line should distinguing between ABLE and Netrom firmware on
arm/netwinder (footbridge)
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been de
Tisztelt Letöltő!
Egyedül nálunk töltheted le most egy sms áráért a teljesen magyar medal
of honor: airborne játékot!
Amennyiben érdekel a játék nézz el weblapunkra: http://moha.vipsms.org
Köszönjük figyelmed!:)
Minden jót!
MOHA
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subjec
Tisztelt Letöltő!
Egyedül nálunk töltheted le most egy sms áráért a teljesen magyar medal
of honor: airborne játékot!
Amennyiben érdekel a játék nézz el weblapunkra: http://moha.vipsms.org
Köszönjük figyelmed!:)
Minden jót!
MOHA
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subjec
Tisztelt Letöltő!
Egyedül nálunk töltheted le most egy sms áráért a teljesen magyar medal
of honor: airborne játékot!
Amennyiben érdekel a játék nézz el weblapunkra: http://moha.vipsms.org
Köszönjük figyelmed!:)
Minden jót!
MOHA
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subjec
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tags 443504 + pending
Bug#443504: linux-kernel-di-sparc: Please include sun FC modules
There were no tags set.
Tags added: pending
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(
tags 443504 + pending
thanks
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 10:33:29PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> To allow users to isntall Debian on US II Enterprise machines please
> include the following Sun FC modules into the sparc64 installer:
>
> - soc
> - socal
Added in revision 49462 of the debian-installe
Accepted:
cdebconf-gtk-udeb_0.114etch1_amd64.udeb
to pool/main/c/cdebconf/cdebconf-gtk-udeb_0.114etch1_amd64.udeb
cdebconf-newt-udeb_0.114etch1_amd64.udeb
to pool/main/c/cdebconf/cdebconf-newt-udeb_0.114etch1_amd64.udeb
cdebconf-priority_0.114etch1_all.udeb
to pool/main/c/cdebconf/cdebconf-p
20 matches
Mail list logo
