Quoting Cyril Brulebois (k...@debian.org):
> Hello Christian,
>
> looking at lvmcfg I see:
> | * Add debhelper token to postinst
>
> What purpose does that serve? All I see in the resulting binary debdiff
> is:
> | $ debdiff --controlfiles=ALL lvmcfg_1.2[56]_amd64.changes
> | […]
> | Postinst fi
Quoting Cyril Brulebois (k...@debian.org):
> → many more here. Missing commits/files/git-foo?
Very likely a misuse of the l10n-changes scriptor a bug in it (for
instance, it tends to report changes in some situations when only the
Dat headers of PO files changed).
--
signature.asc
D
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> severity 685367 wishlist
Bug #685367 [installation-reports] installation-report: Wheezy beta installed
on powermac g4 900 MHz w/ ATI rage graphicscard
Severity set to 'wishlist' from 'normal'
>
End of message, stopping processing here.
Please co
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 11:11:22 +0100
Brian Potkin wrote:
> On Mon 20 Aug 2012 at 11:46:37 +0200, Andreas Glaeser wrote:
>
> > The Installation went OK, but the graphical XFCE-Desktop was not usable,
> > because the
> > x-server was not workable. I ac
Hello,
Christian PERRIER (12/08/2012):
> Quoting Cyril Brulebois (k...@debian.org):
>
> > I've set age-days for this round, and I'll modify the testing summary
> > page to help be build comprehensive unblock/unblock-udeb/age-days
> > requests for next ones.
>
> (keeping -release CC'ed to avoid
Hi folks,
please find below a number of unblock/unblock-udeb requests I'm mostly
OK with as far as d-i is concerned. I added some comments so that one
can grasp what impact this or that change has; some of them are marked
“KiBi-upload”s, basically due to some needed, tiny fix-ups (e.g. fixes
for s
Hello Christian+Wouter,
partman-nbd also makes me raise a question: 'd', our release-team tool
to diff packages between testing and unstable comes up with the
following diffstat:
| Base version: partman-nbd_0.12 from testing
| Target version: partman-nbd_0.14 from unstable
|
| Hints in place:
| =
Hello Milan,
Milan Kupcevic (13/08/2012):
> This changelog line is missing:
>
> * Fallback to factory default HD firmware alias, not to
>
> And what that does?
>
[ extensive summary ]
>
> In the meantime, the changes made in nobootloader version 1.35 are
> enough to make it work for wheezy.
Hello Christian,
looking at lvmcfg I see:
| * Add debhelper token to postinst
What purpose does that serve? All I see in the resulting binary debdiff
is:
| $ debdiff --controlfiles=ALL lvmcfg_1.2[56]_amd64.changes
| […]
| Postinst files of package lvmcfg: lines which differ (wdiff format)
|
On 08/22/2012 10:34 PM, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
>> I think discover is able to handle subsystem-vendor/device ids, both are
>> 0x
>> for vmware controllers. At least for the first one I checked. So excluding it
>> should be possible.
>
> Hmm, according to http://pci-ids.ucw.cz/read/PC/1000/0
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:11:24PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> No, I'm using this "raid" controller, but it just provides an emulation with
> access to scsi disks and nothing you would expect from a raid comtroller.
> Especially you can't ask it for the health of its raid set.
I think last time
On 08/22/2012 09:18 PM, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 08:49:23PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>> Did you read the two bug reports at all? I assume not, otherwise you would
>> not
>> be asking. I don't want to receive emails from mpt-status, telling me that my
>> raid is broken,
NEW ELEMENTS:
- Debian testing and Ubuntu12.04 (os-prober 1.51) are affected by the bug:
their os-prober detect Fedora16 but not Fedora17.
- Ubuntu11.04 (os-prober 1.44) detects Fedora17
So the bug seems to be a regression of os-prober. And it seems to be
restricted to the detection of Fedora17.
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 08:49:23PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Did you read the two bug reports at all? I assume not, otherwise you would not
> be asking. I don't want to receive emails from mpt-status, telling me that my
> raid is broken, if there is no raid at all. Also I do not want to waste r
Package: installation-reports
Boot method:
netinst CD
Image version:
debian-wheezy-DI-b1-i386-netinst.iso
from http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/
Date:
Aug 21 2012 about 2pm EST
Machine:
IBM Thinkpad T60p
Processor: T2500 2.00GH
On 08/22/2012 07:43 PM, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> On 22.08.2012 19:59, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>> Package: debian-installer
>> Severity: normal
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> please do not install mpt-status automatically if the hardware suggests
>
> What's wrong with mpt-status?
Did you read the two bug reports at
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 01:59:46PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
>Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> Looking through the Ubuntu version of debian-installer, I can see that
>> Colin and I independently came up with nigh-on exactly the same way to
>> deal with EFI systems, using a subarch to identify them. We've
>>
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 01:54:50PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
>Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> As I've just blogged, I've got a second alpha CD released with EFI
>> support, this time using grub-efi by default. The first release used
>> elilo only, but I think grub is preferred. So, my question is: should
>>
Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Looking through the Ubuntu version of debian-installer, I can see that
> Colin and I independently came up with nigh-on exactly the same way to
> deal with EFI systems, using a subarch to identify them. We've
> differed very slightly in terms of the the source code in
> libd
Steve McIntyre wrote:
> As I've just blogged, I've got a second alpha CD released with EFI
> support, this time using grub-efi by default. The first release used
> elilo only, but I think grub is preferred. So, my question is: should
> we follow existing x86 convention and allow users a choice of
>
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reassign 685618 discover-data
Bug #685618 [debian-installer] d-i: do not install mpt-status on vmware hardware
Bug reassigned from package 'debian-installer' to 'discover-data'.
Ignoring request to alter found versions of bug #685618 to the same v
reassign 685618 discover-data
merge 618572 685618
thanks
On 08/22/2012 07:00 PM, Christian PERRIER wrote:
> Quoting Bernd Zeimetz (be...@bzed.de):
>> Package: debian-installer
>> Severity: normal
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> please do not install mpt-status automatically if the hardware suggests
>> that the in
On 22.08.2012 19:59, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Package: debian-installer
> Severity: normal
>
> Hi,
>
> please do not install mpt-status automatically if the hardware suggests
What's wrong with mpt-status?
/mjt
> that the installer is running in a virtualized environment. For vmware
> something l
Quoting Bernd Zeimetz (be...@bzed.de):
> Package: debian-installer
> Severity: normal
>
> Hi,
>
> please do not install mpt-status automatically if the hardware suggests
> that the installer is running in a virtualized environment. For vmware
> something like lspci | grep -i vmware should be suff
Your message dated Wed, 22 Aug 2012 18:56:54 +0200
with message-id <20120822165653.gi5...@mykerinos.kheops.frmug.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#685590: Debian-Installer
has caused the Debian Bug report #685590,
regarding Debian-Installer
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the prob
Package: debian-installer
Severity: normal
Hi,
please do not install mpt-status automatically if the hardware suggests
that the installer is running in a virtualized environment. For vmware
something like lspci | grep -i vmware should be sufficient, not sure if
that works for other solutions.
Ch
Hi,
This package includes the biggest changes out of my patchset. Again,
merging some Ubuntu code is the basis of the changes but I've tweaked
a little too. Much of the diff is adding new automatic recipes for
amd64/efi and i386/efi.
Depends on the libdebian-installer patch to add the "efi" subar
Hi,
Reasonably simple changes here, again heavily inspired by Ubuntu
code. One extra issue I found - it looks like /sys and /proc need to
be mounted in /target when we run the postinst, otherwise we'll fail
to drive efibootmgr. I've added code to do that here, but I'm not sure
it's the right way t
Hi,
Here's where much of the EFI work has gone, adding code to deal with
x86 EFI systems. I've mainly merged code from Ubuntu here, but also
fixed a shell expansion bug I found in testing it. Be careful not to
destroy and create a new EFI system partition where one already
exists...
Depends on th
Hi,
Trivial patch to not use GPT partitioning by default when we're on an
EFI machine. Depends on the libdebian-installer patch to add the "efi"
subarch. Merged the amd64 and i386 cases now they're common.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com
"Every t
Hi,
Trivial patch to not use lilo when we're on an EFI machine. Depends on
the libdebian-installer patch to add the "efi" subarch.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com
"I can't ever sleep on planes ... call it irrational if you like, but I'm
afraid I
Hi,
Looking through the Ubuntu version of debian-installer, I can see that
Colin and I independently came up with nigh-on exactly the same way to
deal with EFI systems, using a subarch to identify them. We've
differed very slightly in terms of the the source code in
libdebian-installer for checkin
Hi folks,
As I've just blogged, I've got a second alpha CD released with EFI
support, this time using grub-efi by default. The first release used
elilo only, but I think grub is preferred. So, my question is: should
we follow existing x86 convention and allow users a choice of
bootloader (grub-efi
Package: installation-reports
Boot method: iso dd'd to pendrive
Image version: cd1 (32bit)
Date: August 2012
Machine: Netbooks (Acer Aspire One 532 & Novatech N1)
Processor:Intel Atom 450 & 570
Memory:2gb & 1gb
Partitions: 2gb=swap / 5gb=root / the rest=home
Output of lspci -knn (or lspci -nn):
34 matches
Mail list logo
