Accepted:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 07:54:09 +0200
Source: yaboot-installer
Binary: yaboot-installer
Architecture: source powerpc
Version: 1.1.25
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Debian Install System Team
Changed-By: Christ
yaboot-installer_1.1.25_powerpc.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
yaboot-installer_1.1.25.dsc
yaboot-installer_1.1.25.tar.gz
yaboot-installer_1.1.25_powerpc.udeb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon (running on host franck.debian.org)
--
To UNSUBSCRI
yaboot-installer_1.1.25_powerpc.changes uploaded successfully to
ftp-master.debian.org
along with the files:
yaboot-installer_1.1.25.dsc
yaboot-installer_1.1.25.tar.gz
yaboot-installer_1.1.25_powerpc.udeb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon (running on host ravel.debian.org)
--
Your message dated Sat, 27 Oct 2012 06:17:35 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#616095: fixed in yaboot-installer 1.1.25
has caused the Debian Bug report #616095,
regarding debian-installer: fails to install bootloader on ibm power5 lpar
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim tha
Your message dated Sat, 27 Oct 2012 06:17:35 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#386332: fixed in yaboot-installer 1.1.25
has caused the Debian Bug report #386332,
regarding yaboot-installer: should use ofpathname instead of ofpath on chrp
boxes.
to be marked as done.
This means that you
Your message dated Sat, 27 Oct 2012 06:17:35 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#616095: fixed in yaboot-installer 1.1.25
has caused the Debian Bug report #616095,
regarding yaboot-installer: should use ofpathname instead of ofpath on chrp
boxes.
to be marked as done.
This means that you
Your message dated Sat, 27 Oct 2012 06:17:35 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#386332: fixed in yaboot-installer 1.1.25
has caused the Debian Bug report #386332,
regarding debian-installer: fails to install bootloader on ibm power5 lpar
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim tha
Accepted:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 07:23:24 +0200
Source: partman-efi
Binary: partman-efi
Architecture: source i386
Version: 30
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Debian Install System Team
Changed-By: Christian Perrier
Desc
On Oct 25, 2012, at 2:17 PM, Patrick Fitzmorris wrote:
> [very clear instructions for booting the Debian installer (or, I guess almost
> anything else) via bootp/tftpd.]
Thanks, Patrick! That looks like a really interesting test. I'll give it a
try soon!
Rick
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to d
partman-efi_30_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
partman-efi_30.dsc
partman-efi_30.tar.gz
partman-efi_30_i386.udeb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon (running on host franck.debian.org)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.deb
partman-efi_30_i386.changes uploaded successfully to ftp-master.debian.org
along with the files:
partman-efi_30.dsc
partman-efi_30.tar.gz
partman-efi_30_i386.udeb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon (running on host ravel.debian.org)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ..
Quoting intrigeri (intrig...@debian.org):
> ... else, this script exits, umount is never run, and a dangling
> grub-mount process is left behind.
.../...
Impressive analysis and solution. Anyone objecting to /me committing
intrigeri's fix?
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
this issue is still in 1.0.42
i'm aply this workaround and working for my
thanks!
--
Fernando Toledo
Dock Sud BBS
http://bbs.docksud.com.ar
telnet://bbs.docksud.com.ar
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas..
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 09:41:15PM +0200, Holger Wansing wrote:
> testing beta3, I noted that there is no partition marked with the
> BOOTABLE flag, when I use the Guided partitioning (no matter if I use
> "All files in one partition" or "Separate /home partition" or
> "Separate /home, /tmp and
Hello,
testing beta3, I noted that there is no partition marked with the
BOOTABLE flag, when I use the Guided partitioning (no matter if I use
"All files in one partition" or "Separate /home partition" or
"Separate /home, /tmp and /usr partition").
Is this no longer needed?
I have in mind, tha
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 02:05:24PM +0200, Luca Capello wrote:
>Hi Steve!
>
>On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 13:53:19 +0200, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>
>> Hey Luca,
>>
>> Be aware, GPT does *not* always need a BIOS boot partition - if you're
>> booting via EFI you don't need that at all.
>
>Is thus the following
Hi,
On 10/26/2012 02:23 PM, Philipp Kern wrote:
> Hopefully corrected now:
Correct.
However I wonder if it should also be mentioned that the lo
interface (for 127.0.0.1) does not come up, too, which leads to
interesting effects like the one mentioned in bug #691406 [1].
1. http://bugs.debian.or
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 11:15:31AM +0200, Stephan Beyer wrote:
> On 10/26/2012 12:11 AM, Philipp Kern wrote:
> >> And the error message is:
> >> /etc/network/interfaces:15: misplaced option
> >> ifup: couldn't read interfaces file "/etc/network/interfaces"
> >>
> >> Looks pretty dangerous. However,
tags 680084 + patch
thanks
intrigeri wrote (30 Sep 2012 09:42:14 GMT) :
> I can see that too with os-prober installed.
TL;DR ---> see patch at the bottom of this message.
I retried, and I did not see that *the first time*.
First time log:
$ pgrep -l grub-mount
$ sudo update-grub
Generati
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 680084 + patch
Bug #680084 [os-prober] postinst script gets stuck
Added tag(s) patch.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
680084: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=680084
Debian Bug
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:30:01AM +0300, Sorina - Gabriela Sandu wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:26 AM, Christian PERRIER wrote:
> > Quoting Sorina - Gabriela Sandu (sandu.sor...@gmail.com):
> >
> >> [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=682737
> >> [2]
> >> http://anonscm
Accepted:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 11:11:53 +0200
Source: netcfg
Binary: netcfg netcfg-static
Architecture: source amd64
Version: 1.99
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Debian Install System Team
Changed-By: Philipp Kern
netcfg_1.99_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
netcfg_1.99.dsc
netcfg_1.99.tar.gz
netcfg_1.99_amd64.udeb
netcfg-static_1.99_amd64.udeb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon (running on host franck.debian.org)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-
Your message dated Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:18:23 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#606636: fixed in netcfg 1.99
has caused the Debian Bug report #606636,
regarding hostname/domain name preseeding is quite broken
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt
Your message dated Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:18:23 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#690330: fixed in netcfg 1.99
has caused the Debian Bug report #690330,
regarding netcfg: Segfault when netcfg/enable is false
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt wit
Your message dated Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:18:23 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#606636: fixed in netcfg 1.99
has caused the Debian Bug report #606636,
regarding dhcp returned hostname take precedence on netcfg/get_hostname
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem h
Your message dated Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:18:23 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#606636: fixed in netcfg 1.99
has caused the Debian Bug report #606636,
regarding Reverse DNS takes precedence over netcfg/get_hostname
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been
Your message dated Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:18:23 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#606636: fixed in netcfg 1.99
has caused the Debian Bug report #606636,
regarding netcfg: Disable reverse-resolve via preseed
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with
On 10/26/2012 12:11 AM, Philipp Kern wrote:
>> And the error message is:
>> /etc/network/interfaces:15: misplaced option
>> ifup: couldn't read interfaces file "/etc/network/interfaces"
>>
>> Looks pretty dangerous. However, as mentioned, everything worked though.
>> (In the meantime I commented ou
29 matches
Mail list logo
