Hello Cyril, list,
On 22/04/2025 12:48, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
I've tried to use pads for that in the past but they tend to be broken
in various ways, so maybe using the wiki would be the safest: if people
want to start a list of things that they'd like to see addressed or that
they feel must be
ke 23.4.2025 klo 9.20 Martin-Éric Racine (martin-eric.rac...@iki.fi) kirjoitti:
>
> ke 23.4.2025 klo 9.13 Pascal Hambourg (pas...@plouf.fr.eu.org) kirjoitti:
> >
> > On 23/04/2025 at 06:08, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > >
> > > In its current form, os-prober produces an unusable GRUB config segment
On 23/04/2025 at 08:20, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
ke 23.4.2025 klo 9.13 Pascal Hambourg (pas...@plouf.fr.eu.org) kirjoitti:
os-prober does not generate GRUB menu entries. It just detects operating
systems, and GRUB helper script 30_os-prober uses its output to generate
menu entries. Is os-probe
ke 23.4.2025 klo 9.13 Pascal Hambourg (pas...@plouf.fr.eu.org) kirjoitti:
>
> On 23/04/2025 at 06:08, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> >
> > In its current form, os-prober produces an unusable GRUB config segment
> > when it finds a Hurd partition:
> >
> > 1) It wants to boot a /boot/gnumach.gz file th
On 23/04/2025 at 06:08, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
In its current form, os-prober produces an unusable GRUB config segment when it
finds a Hurd partition:
1) It wants to boot a /boot/gnumach.gz file that doesn't exist. Mach kernel
files include version numbers.
Once that has been manually fix
On Tue, 22 Apr 2025 12:20:22 +0200 Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Holger Wansing (2025-04-21):
> > The latter would be at least consistent with the behaviour of rescue
> > mode for "usual filesystems" (presenting the user a list of
> > possibilities, which partition to mount as root filesystem).
> >
>
Package: os-prober
Severity: important
X-Debbugs-Cc: martin-eric.rac...@iki.fi
Usertags: hurd-i386
In its current form, os-prober produces an unusable GRUB config segment when it
finds a Hurd partition:
1) It wants to boot a /boot/gnumach.gz file that doesn't exist. Mach kernel
files include v
>
> aren't as trivial as you seem to think they are
I don't recall suggesting any effort was trivial.
shouldn't be bothered with that question.
You didn't answer my question regarding the viability of a patch to
implement my suggested feature. Though given this statement it sounds like
there
Tyler Riddle (2025-04-22):
> I appreciate that there is development effort associated with features but
> my interpretation of what you are saying is that concerns about a LUKS name
> can be ignored at least in terms of the Debian installer. Is my
> interpretation incorrect?
> Does this mean that
rescue_1.100_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
rescue_1.100.dsc
rescue_1.100.tar.xz
rescue-check_1.100_all.udeb
rescue-mode_1.100_all.udeb
rescue_1.100_amd64.buildinfo
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon (running on host usper.debian.org)
Your message dated Tue, 22 Apr 2025 22:07:11 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#1103476: fixed in rescue 1.100
has caused the Debian Bug report #1103476,
regarding "debian-installer: Rescue mode cannot execute a shell for any default
btrfs installations"
to be marked as done.
This means
Your message dated Tue, 22 Apr 2025 22:07:11 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#1018894: fixed in rescue 1.100
has caused the Debian Bug report #1018894,
regarding rescue-mode: mounts wrong btrfs subvolume
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt wit
>
> That would mean a new feature, localization, plus long term maintenance
I appreciate that there is development effort associated with features but
my interpretation of what you are saying is that concerns about a LUKS name
can be ignored at least in terms of the Debian installer. Is my
interp
Thank you for your contribution to Debian.
Accepted:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Format: 1.8
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 13:59:04 -0400
Source: rescue
Binary: rescue-check rescue-mode
Architecture: source all
Version: 1.100
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Debi
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 pending
Bug #1103476 [debian-installer] "debian-installer: Rescue mode cannot execute a
shell for any default btrfs installations"
Ignoring request to alter tags of bug #1103476 to the same tags previously set
--
1103476: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bug
Oops, there was also this reply:
Pascal Hambourg writes:
> On 18/04/2025 at 03:39, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
>> Pascal Hambourg writes:
>>> On 11/04/2025 at 03:21, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
>> Would you please share what you think are useful (and/or not useful)
>> criteria for these heuristics?
Tyler Riddle (2025-04-22):
> Not being a fan of having the backing block device be a part of the name
> used for the LUKS config using the UUID seems like a very reasonable
> change. However, as a sysadmin that has to juggle these things, I would
> rather not have to type out a UUID when I'm worki
Dropping kibi from CC, since he's super busy
Holger Wansing writes:
> Would it be possible, to ask the user for input, if the automatic tries
> mentioned
> in [1] above all fail?
Cyril Brulebois writes:
> Pascal Hambourg (2025-04-21):
>
>> Or a bigger change like what Nicholas intends to i
Processing control commands:
> tag 1103476 +pending
Bug #1103476 [debian-installer] "debian-installer: Rescue mode cannot execute a
shell for any default btrfs installations"
Added tag(s) pending.
--
1102604: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1102604
1103476: https://bugs.debian
Control: tag 1103476 +pending
I'm dropping kibi from CC of this big feature thread since he's ultra
busy.
Tyler Riddle writes:
>>
>> Possible yes, desirable unsure.
>
> Others might disagree
>
>
> First, I absolutely do not want perfection to be the enemy of good here and
> I'm interested in s
>
> change the installer workflow so that instead of selecting a LUKS label
> for me the installer prompts me for what I want the LUKS label to be
I wanted to expound on my particular feature request of letting the user
select the LUKS name and how that relates to changing the LUKS name to one
b
Processing control commands:
> retitle -1 Debian installer adds the CDROM in APT sources even
Bug #1103650 [debian-installer] I have Debian bug that exist for 2 years and
dont fixed
Changed Bug title to 'Debian installer adds the CDROM in APT sources even' from
'I have Debian bug that exist for
Control: retitle -1 Debian installer adds the CDROM in APT sources even
when the installation source is not a CDROM
On Sun, 20 Apr 2025 10:18:01 +0300 Максим Бойко wrote:
I am reporting a bug where the Debian installer incorrectly adds the
CDROM drive as a mirror in the APT sources list, even
We believe that the bug you reported is now fixed; the following
package(s) have been removed from unstable:
installation-guide-armel | 20230623 | all
--- Reason ---
ROM; arch no longer a release arch for d-i in Trixie
We believe that the bug you reported is now fixed; the following
package(s) have been removed from unstable:
installation-guide-i386 | 20230623 | all
--- Reason ---
ROM; arch no longer a release arch for d-i in Trixie
-
We believe that the bug you reported is now fixed; the following
package(s) have been removed from unstable:
installation-guide-mipsel | 20230623 | all
--- Reason ---
ROM; arch no longer a release arch for d-i in Trixie
---
>
> Possible yes, desirable unsure.
Others might disagree
First, I absolutely do not want perfection to be the enemy of good here and
I'm interested in seeing the quick and easy fix slide in before freezes
prevent it so please interpret the following as an explanation of my
expectations and not
Package: locales-all
Version: 2.41-7
Severity: grave
Tags: a11y d-i
Justification: renders package unusable
X-Debbugs-Cc: mechti...@debian.org, debian-boot@lists.debian.org
After a reboot last week I have problems using a terminal. There is no
difference between tty 1-6 or under XFCE4. The display
Hi,
I've tried to use pads for that in the past but they tend to be broken
in various ways, so maybe using the wiki would be the safest: if people
want to start a list of things that they'd like to see addressed or that
they feel must be addressed before Trixie is released, that'd be nice.
Thanks
Holger Wansing (2025-04-21):
> The latter would be at least consistent with the behaviour of rescue
> mode for "usual filesystems" (presenting the user a list of
> possibilities, which partition to mount as root filesystem).
>
> Would it be possible, to ask the user for input, if the automatic
>
Your message dated Tue, 22 Apr 2025 12:14:18 +0200
with message-id <20250422101418.2znxyoimgr5cw...@mraw.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#1103843: debian-installer: Installer generates apt
sources.list that can be modernized
has caused the Debian Bug report #1103843,
regarding debian-installer: Insta
Pascal Hambourg (2025-04-21):
> > On Sun, Apr 20, 2025 at 3:29 PM Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > > Pascal Hambourg (2025-04-20):
> > > >
> > > > FWIW an open merge request proposed a naming scheme based on LUKS
> > > > UUID:
> > > > <
> > > https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/partman-crypto/-/m
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reassign 1103650 debian-installer
Bug #1103650 [debian-cdrom-detect (or apt, if the issue persists after
installation)] I have Debian bug that exist for 2 years and dont fixed
Warning: Unknown package 'debian-cdrom-detect'
Warning: Unknown packag
33 matches
Mail list logo
