On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 09:50:39PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Nod. Apologies for the surprise this time. I was hoping to minimise
> the pain with quick uploads and migration, but... :-(
Why are the levels not enforced by Debian Breaks/Conflicts as well?
Bastian
--
The face of war has never
On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 09:29:11PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
>There are other alternative on your test systems:
>
> 1. disable secure boot while testing (which of course is *not* the
>right answer long-term!)
>
> 2. use mokutil --set-sbat-policy from a running system to go back to
>a p
On Thursday, 4 July 2024 13:19:59 CEST Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> It just seems to me that, at least with qemu packages currently found in
> Debian 12, earlier versions of the installer (based on 6.8.y) didn't
> need that particular module to get X up and running, while newer
> versions of the instal
Tj (2024-07-04):
> Focusing on just 6.8.12-1 and 6.9.7-1 I cannot see any difference in the
> ISO builds. That is, for both:
>
> * linux-image-*-amd64 does include drivers/gpu/drm/qxl/qxl.ko*
> * fb-modules-*-amd64-di.udeb does not
> * kernel-image-*-amd64-di does not
> * d-i Makefile's DRM_M
Tj writes:
> Source: debian-installer
> Followup-For: Bug #1075713
> X-Debbugs-Cc: tj.iam...@proton.me
>
> I've done some further research via debian-installer repo, build logs,
> and inspecting fb-modules-*-amd64-di packages.
Thanks :-)
> Focusing on just 6.8.12-1 and 6.9.7-1 I cannot see any
Source: debian-installer
Followup-For: Bug #1075713
X-Debbugs-Cc: tj.iam...@proton.me
I've done some further research via debian-installer repo, build logs,
and inspecting fb-modules-*-amd64-di packages.
Focusing on just 6.8.12-1 and 6.9.7-1 I cannot see any difference in the
ISO builds. That is,
6 matches
Mail list logo
