On Sunday 25 October 2009, Holger Wansing wrote:
> Frans Pop wrote:
> > Without additional information I see no reason to change the current
> > text. In what circumstances would it be better to use a swap file over
> > a swap partition and why?
>
> Maybe only change the text a bit, to add a short
Package: grub-installer
Version: 1.47
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
Hello,
The attached patch fixes the grub2 menuentry generated for GNU/Hurd:
since 1.97 grub2 does not pass the module path to multiboot kernels, and
has thus to be repeated in the module command.
Samuel
-- System Information:
De
Package: grub-pc
Version: 1.97-1
Severity: serious
Some setups used by D-I now require --force, and grub-installer only
passes this flag starting with 1.47.
D-I team: please close this bug when we don't need to support
grub-installer << 1.47 anymore.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 5.0.3
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 11:15:32AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Robert Millan a écrit :
> > Package: debian-installer
> > Severity: normal
> > Tags: patch
> >
> > Next upstream release of GRUB (1.97~beta5) will have its kFreeBSD loader
> > renamed (from "freebsd" to "kfreebsd") to reflect that i
Hi,
Frans Pop wrote:
> Without additional information I see no reason to change the current text.
> In what circumstances would it be better to use a swap file over a swap
> partition and why?
Maybe only change the text a bit, to add a short information, that
in some situations it may be possi
On Sunday 25 October 2009, Luk Claes wrote:
> Wrong, ssh is/was broken on mips* so the results did not get uploaded,
> but the builds were not interrupted.
I guess you're referring to #538313?
That bug was fixed on Okt 5, but the current situation, 20 days later, is
that we still don't have dail
On Sunday 25 October 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Sunday 25 October 2009, Luk Claes wrote:
> > Frans Pop wrote:
> > > For mips and mipsel there's a much bigger problem: there have not
> > > been any builds at all since early July. It looks as if some of the
> > > central D-I buildds are simply not b
On Sunday 25 October 2009, Luk Claes wrote:
> Frans Pop wrote:
> > For mips and mipsel there's a much bigger problem: there have not been
> > any builds at all since early July. It looks as if some of the central
> > D-I buildds are simply not being managed.
>
> Wrong, ssh is/was broken on mips* so
Frans Pop wrote:
> On Sunday 25 October 2009, Ian Campbell wrote:
>> I only checked the first failure for each arch but this same failure
>> seems to have effected mips (build_r4k-ip22_cdrom), s390 (build_generic)
>> and armel (uild_iop32x_netboot_glantank).
>
> For mips and mipsel there's a much
FYI: The status of the linux-kernel-di-mipsel-2.6 source package
in Debian's testing distribution has changed.
Previous version: 1.13
Current version: 1.15
--
This email is automatically generated once a day. As the installation of
new packages into testing happens multiple times a day you
FYI: The status of the linux-kernel-di-sparc-2.6 source package
in Debian's testing distribution has changed.
Previous version: 1.47
Current version: 1.49
--
This email is automatically generated once a day. As the installation of
new packages into testing happens multiple times a day you
FYI: The status of the linux-kernel-di-armel-2.6 source package
in Debian's testing distribution has changed.
Previous version: 1.32lenny5
Current version: 1.39
--
This email is automatically generated once a day. As the installation of
new packages into testing happens multiple times a da
FYI: The status of the linux-modules-di-armel-2.6 source package
in Debian's testing distribution has changed.
Previous version: 1.11lenny1
Current version: 1.12
--
This email is automatically generated once a day. As the installation of
new packages into testing happens multiple times a d
FYI: The status of the linux-modules-di-powerpc-2.6 source package
in Debian's testing distribution has changed.
Previous version: 2.16
Current version: 2.17
--
This email is automatically generated once a day. As the installation of
new packages into testing happens multiple times a day y
FYI: The status of the linux-modules-di-sparc-2.6 source package
in Debian's testing distribution has changed.
Previous version: 1.18
Current version: 1.19
--
This email is automatically generated once a day. As the installation of
new packages into testing happens multiple times a day you
FYI: The status of the linux-modules-di-mipsel-2.6 source package
in Debian's testing distribution has changed.
Previous version: 1.19
Current version: 1.20
--
This email is automatically generated once a day. As the installation of
new packages into testing happens multiple times a day yo
FYI: The status of the linux-kernel-di-powerpc-2.6 source package
in Debian's testing distribution has changed.
Previous version: 1.58
Current version: 1.60
--
This email is automatically generated once a day. As the installation of
new packages into testing happens multiple times a day yo
On Sunday 25 October 2009, Ian Campbell wrote:
> I only checked the first failure for each arch but this same failure
> seems to have effected mips (build_r4k-ip22_cdrom), s390 (build_generic)
> and armel (uild_iop32x_netboot_glantank).
For mips and mipsel there's a much bigger problem: there have
I have just committed two changes to the daily-build-aggregator script [1]:
1) drop alpha and remove commented entry for m68k;
2) one-time rename old statistics file in order to reset them.
Dropping alpha could possibly have been postponed for some time, but it
made sense to do it now because of
On Sun, 2009-10-25 at 06:20 +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Friday 16 October 2009, Frank Lin PIAT wrote:
> > I have finally resolved and merged a bunch of patch I had for
> > di-netboot-assistant.
> > [..]
>
> I don't think experimental is the right choice here. I doubt you would get
> anybody to a
On Sunday 25 October 2009, Ian Campbell wrote:
> I was unable to reproduce in an uptodate i386 sid chroot. I'm not sure
> which environment these builds occur, maybe it's a testing thing?
No, daily images get build in a sid environment.
> powerpc is failing differently with
> E: Couldn't
On Sun, 2009-10-25 at 06:32 +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> > Looks to me that the general state of builds is rather pathetic ATM:
>
> Sorry. I should have just written "Looks like there are quite a few
> problems with builds ATM". Does not change the facts or the likelyhood of
> a successful upload/
22 matches
Mail list logo
