Quoting Geert Stappers (stapp...@stappers.nl):
> reopen 764982
> stop
I really don't think this is a good idea and I'm this close to
re-close the bug report.
If anyone feels that "something should be done for backports", please
open a new bug report, eventually cloning 764982 in order to keep
hi
Quoting Holger Wansing (li...@wansing-online.de):
> I have double-checked, Tajik is indeed not available in Wheezy installer,
> but in Jessie. And it is available in both text and graphical installer
> in Jessie.
By the way, Tajik is, IIRC, not 100% complete in the Jessie installer:
Charset is
Release team: theres a question for you at the end of the mail.
On 20/04/15 00:49, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
peter green (2015-04-20):
Package: debian-installer-netboot-images
Severity: serious
The RC policy states "Packages must be buildable within the same release.".
In this context I inte
peter green (2015-04-20):
> Package: debian-installer-netboot-images
> Severity: serious
>
> The RC policy states "Packages must be buildable within the same release.".
> In this context I interpret "buildable" as buildable from actual sourcecode
> (not just package together) and "the same releas
Your message dated Sun, 19 Apr 2015 20:02:38 -0400
with message-id
and subject line Re: Bug#782976: debian-installer-netboot-images packages
kfreebsd images but kfreebsd is not in jessie.
has caused the Debian Bug report #782976,
regarding debian-installer-netboot-images packages kfreebsd images
Package: debian-installer-netboot-images
Severity: serious
The RC policy states "Packages must be buildable within the same
release.". In this context I interpret "buildable" as buildable from
actual sourcecode (not just package together) and "the same release" as
the collection of stuff that
Package: installation-reports
Severity: normal
Tags: d-i
-- Package-specific info:
Boot method: CD
Image version:
http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/jessie_di_rc2/amd64/iso-cd/debian-jessie-DI-rc2-amd64-netinst.iso
Date: 2015-04-17 22:16
Machine: HP Pavilion 500-308ng
Partitions: bjoern@suveret
Op 19-04-15 om 22:00 schreef Turbo Fredriksson:
> If someone wants newer version, they can (should!) upgrade to the newer
> distribution. OR, if they're brave, use back ports.
Do you mean upgrade to testing?
Nobody gets a newer version by enabling backports in sources.list, you
only get a newer v
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reopen 764982
Bug #764982 {Done: Cyril Brulebois } [apt-setup-udeb]
apt-setup-udeb: Backports via d-i, but not by default
'reopen' may be inappropriate when a bug has been closed with a version;
all fixed versions will be cleared, and you may nee
reopen 764982
stop
On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 07:13:36PM +0200, Geert Stappers wrote:
> control reopen -1
> stop
>
>
> BR reopened for futher discussion.
>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.
On Apr 19, 2015, at 9:48 PM, Paul van der Vlis wrote:
> Did you check if it really was back ports?
Yes. I've been using Debian GNU/Linux since.. 'bo' or something and a DD since
'97 or so. I know what I'm doing (98% of the time :).
> I use backports on all machines I care about, and I never had
Op 19-04-15 om 20:59 schreef Turbo Fredriksson:
> On Apr 19, 2015, at 8:25 PM, Geert Stappers wrote:
>
>> What is the danger of having backports (default) enabled?
>
> From what I've seen (when I tried it a couple of years ago), is that
> the back porting is quite … "sloppy". If the package needs
Hi,
Niels Thykier wrote:
> I tried to ask in #debian-i18n about the new languages, but so far no
> one has replied me. I am a bit overbooked, so if any you have time to
> follow on that, then I would greatly appreciate it.
I have looked into this. Based on
http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/d-i/de
> Paul van der Vlis (2015-04-19):
>> Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>> > Packages sometimes bitrot in backports, with unfixed security issues,
>> > up to the point they get removed. That can also happen because they're
>> > not supportable anymore (e.g. owncloud in wheezy-backports). Now we
>> > have debi
On Apr 19, 2015, at 8:25 PM, Geert Stappers wrote:
> What is the danger of having backports (default) enabled?
From what I've seen (when I tried it a couple of years ago), is that
the back porting is quite … "sloppy". If the package needs a newer lib,
that is back ported as well. And the newer li
Quoting Paul van der Vlis (p...@vandervlis.nl):
> Hello,
>
> I saw backports has been removed as default setting from sources.list in
> Jessie RC3. I am very disappointed by this last minute change, without
> much discussion so far I know. I did not know about this bug.
>
> In my opinion it's ver
On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 07:35:21PM +0200, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
> On Apr 19, 2015, at 7:15 PM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> >
> > Do you see that ?but?? That's exactly why it's not safe to have this
> > turned on by default.
>
>
> Thank you KiBi! I defiantly don't want back ports enabled by defau
Paul van der Vlis (2015-04-19):
> Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > Packages sometimes bitrot in backports, with unfixed security issues,
> > up to the point they get removed. That can also happen because they're
> > not supportable anymore (e.g. owncloud in wheezy-backports). Now we
> > have debian-secu
Holger Wansing (2015-04-19):
> The release-notes currently contain
>
> Graphical installer
>
> Graphical installer is now the default on supported platforms.
> Text installer is still accessible from the very first menu, or if
> the system has limited capabilities.
>
> A
Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Packages sometimes bitrot in backports, with unfixed security issues, up
> to the point they get removed. That can also happen because they're not
> supportable anymore (e.g. owncloud in wheezy-backports). Now we have
> debian-security-support for pathological cases in stab
Hi,
Niels Thykier wrote:
> On 2015-04-11 08:07, Baptiste Jammet wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Dixit Niels Thykier, le 16/03/2015 :
> >
> >> I am contacting you to do a final review of the release-notes for the
> >> d-i related topics (as listed on [1]):
> >
> > Here are some items I think it's im
Op 19-04-15 om 18:12 schreef Cyril Brulebois:
> Paul van der Vlis (2015-04-19):
>> I saw backports has been removed as default setting from sources.list in
>> Jessie RC3. I am very disappointed by this last minute change, without
>> much discussion so far I know. I did not know about this bug.
>
On Apr 19, 2015, at 7:15 PM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Paul van der Vlis (2015-04-19):
>
>> Are all machines with backports enabled ticking timebombs?
>> No, but you have to know what you do.
>
> Do you see that “but”? That's exactly why it's not safe to have this
> turned on by default.
Thank
micah anderson (2015-04-19):
> You pointed out that apt will happily install a package from backports
> if it is not available in the base suite, which might mean that you
> don't realize that you are going to install something from backports
> because you didn't explicitly ask for it...
>
> Howe
> In my opinion it's very good when backports is default in sources.list.
>My opinion is that I don't want to push ticking time bombs into the
>hands of our users. And that's exactly what defaulting to enabling
>backports was.
You pointed out that apt will happily install a package from backport
(Please you reply-all on the BTS.)
Paul van der Vlis (2015-04-19):
> Now there is no time for a discussion anymore!
There's not much to discuss…
> And this was not a RC-bug.
Not marked as such but I wouldn't release Jessie with it, so that was RC
anyway. :)
> I always enable backports on all
control reopen -1
stop
On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 05:44:12PM +0200, Paul van der Vlis wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I saw backports has been removed as default setting from sources.list in
> Jessie RC3. I am very disappointed by this last minute change, without
> much discussion so far I know. I did not know
> Paul van der Vlis (2015-04-19):
>> I saw backports has been removed as default setting from sources.list in
>> Jessie RC3. I am very disappointed by this last minute change, without
>> much discussion so far I know. I did not know about this bug.
>
> Not knowing about this bug report doesn't me
Paul van der Vlis (2015-04-19):
> I saw backports has been removed as default setting from sources.list in
> Jessie RC3. I am very disappointed by this last minute change, without
> much discussion so far I know. I did not know about this bug.
Not knowing about this bug report doesn't mean there
Steve McIntyre (2015-04-19):
> I know that the kFreeBSD ports are not being officially released
> [1]. What plans (if any) have been made for any *un*official releases?
> I've just removed the BSD builds from the debian-cd architecture lists
> in preparation for next weekend, but I've not heard an
Hello,
I saw backports has been removed as default setting from sources.list in
Jessie RC3. I am very disappointed by this last minute change, without
much discussion so far I know. I did not know about this bug.
In my opinion it's very good when backports is default in sources.list.
With regard
Hi folks,
I know that the kFreeBSD ports are not being officially released
[1]. What plans (if any) have been made for any *un*official releases?
I've just removed the BSD builds from the debian-cd architecture lists
in preparation for next weekend, but I've not heard anything more...
[1] https:/
The Debian Installer team[1] is pleased to announce the third release
candidate of the installer for Debian 8 "Jessie".
Improvements in this release of the installer
=
* apt-setup:
- Stop enabling backports by default (#764982).
* clock-setup:
Package: console-setup
Version: 1.122
Followup-For: Bug #759657
Out-of-band I received the suggestion to create
/etc/systemd/system/console-setup.service.d/wait4udev.conf
with the content
[Unit]
Wants=systemd-udev-settle.service
After=systemd-udev-settle.service
Accepted:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 11:17:56 +0200
Source: debian-installer-netboot-images
Binary: debian-installer-8-netboot-amd64 debian-installer-8-netboot-arm64
debian-installer-8-netboot-armel debian-installer-8-netboot-armhf
debia
debian-installer-netboot-images_20150418_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to
localhost
along with the files:
debian-installer-netboot-images_20150418.dsc
debian-installer-netboot-images_20150418.tar.xz
debian-installer-8-netboot-amd64_20150418_all.deb
debian-installer-8-netboot-arm64_20
Package: console-setup
Version: 1.121
Followup-For: Bug #759657
These are the system settings
- after boot showing the wrong setup
- but AFTER running systemctl restart console-setup.service
- after which the setup is correct
in other words just after the previous report,
Your message dated Sun, 19 Apr 2015 12:14:03 +0200
with message-id <27493164.e86UacO8HP@gyllingar>
and subject line Re: Bug#782845: debian-installer-netboot-images: FTBFS with a
checksum mismatch
has caused the Debian Bug report #782845,
regarding debian-installer-netboot-images: FTBFS with a chec
Package: console-setup
Version: 1.121
Followup-For: Bug #759657
This is just to document system information
- right after boot
- showing the wrong setup ("forgotten font")
- before "fixing" by reconfiguring console-setup
in case it is any different from the following repo
Bonjour,
Dixit Holger Wansing, le 18/04/2015 :
>I just noted, that the french translation of the d-i manual was
>lacking the definition of &arch-title; for the ppc64el architecture.
>That leads to no text being displayed when that entity is used.
>(I had the same problem in German, that where I
Your message dated Sun, 19 Apr 2015 09:43:37 +0200
with message-id <20150419094337.3c9a2085@s5.lokal>
and subject line done
has caused the Debian Bug report #782757,
regarding installation-report: Jessie-RC-AMD64 on my build-PC
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has b
41 matches
Mail list logo
