> Failed or old builds:
>
> * OLD BUILD:armel Aug 09 17:32 buildd@alain build_iop32x_netboot
>
> http://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/armel/daily/build_iop32x_netboot.log
>
> * OLD BUILD:armel Aug 09 17:34 buildd@alain
> build_iop32x_network-console_glantank
>
Quoting Colin Watson (cjwat...@debian.org):
> Does anyone know what's going on here? The logs show:
>
> debian-installer git tree head: e93d4f4b527c4a85e81a06fb0a8c6fc0536ae37d
>
> ... which is from 15 July. Clearly the build tree isn't getting updated
> for some reason, but I don't know why
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I wrote:
>I wish I didn't feel the need to mention this, but
>on a related note, I am worried that "apt-get dist-upgrade"
>(or maybe it was "aptitude full-upgrade") failed to
>upgrade busybox.
It turns out that "apt-get dist-upgrade" didn't complete.
Debian installer build overview
---
Failed or old builds:
* OLD BUILD:armel Aug 09 17:32 buildd@alain build_iop32x_netboot
http://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/armel/daily/build_iop32x_netboot.log
* OLD BUILD:armel Aug 09 17:34 buildd@alain
bu
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 01:00:03AM +, Daily build aggregator wrote:
> * FAILED BUILD: mipsel Aug 12 00:06 buildd@rem
> build_cobalt_netboot-2.6_serial
>
> http://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/mipsel/daily/build_cobalt_netboot-2.6_serial.log
>
> * FAILED BUILD: mipsel Aug 12 00
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I have news.
Good news!
Upgrading busybox from version 1:1.1.3-3 to
1:1.18.5-1 fixed it.
I used SystemRescueCD http://www.sysresccd.org/Main_Page
to boot my computer, mount the hard drive, chroot into it,
upgrade busybox and run "update-initramfs -u
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reassign 637481 busybox
Bug #637481 [sysvinit] /init: /init: 318: cannot open /root/dev/console: No
such file
Bug reassigned from package 'sysvinit' to 'busybox'.
Bug No longer marked as found in versions sysvinit/2.88dsf-13.11.
> thanks
Stopping
Patch proposal:
# diff ./debian-installer/packages/base-installer/kernel/powerpc.sh.old
./debian-installer/packages/base-installer/kernel/powerpc.sh
4c4
< power3|power4|power4+|ppc970*|power5|power5+|power6|power6x)
---
>
power3|power4|power4+|ppc970*|power5|power5+|power6|
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reassign 637519 installation-reports
Bug #637519 [installation-repots] installation-repots: 3.0.0 ppc64 kernel
installed fine on Power7/710 LPAR.
Warning: Unknown package 'installation-repots'
Bug reassigned from package 'installation-repots' to
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reassign 637467 netcfg
Bug #637467 [installation-reports] installation-reports: Tested WPA - success!
(with small comment on template)
Bug reassigned from package 'installation-reports' to 'netcfg'.
> retitle 637467 "WPA PSK" should be renamed "W
reassign 637467 netcfg
retitle 637467 "WPA PSK" should be renamed "WPA/WPA2 PSK"
thanks
Quoting Holger Wansing (li...@wansing-online.de):
> One small comment:
> When it comes to the question, which encryption is used for wlan, I am
> given the choices "WEP/Open" and "WPA PSK".
> While the second
+1 on both remarks by Colin (not agreeing with sudo by defaultand
the fact that the remark about Ubuntu wasn't appropriate).
Still, Miguel, thanks for raising these questions again. Sometimes,
conditions change and, at least, re-asking ourselves whether choices
made some years ago are still va
Quoting Colin Watson (cjwat...@debian.org):
> I object to this change. It's surely not a hard question for people to
+1
>From Jérémy Bobbio BOF at DebConf, we could take ideas about improving
the way non-skilled users understand this question and the question
about login name. We could even mak
13 matches
Mail list logo
