I'm not done with this yet. I'm working on a more general patch with new
features, which will be forthcoming shortly. I would ask that nothing
major be done until that is ready.
The current version is certainly ready for testing, although Andreas
already seems to have done so extensively.
On Sat
(I see that Andreas has recently posted a set of patches. The patches I
have attached below are not based on that work, although they address
some of the same problems. At the end of this message, are some comments
about how our alternative solutions might be combined.)
On Fri, 4 Oct 2013 06:02:4
On Fri, 04 Oct 2013 12:45:24 +0200
Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
> Sadly it only "seems" to work well, but in fact, your previous (and I
> assume also this) patch break apt-setup trying to add the CD to
> /etc/sources.list. I am currently working on this problem and hope to
> finish this soon.
I'm so
This is an improved version of the patch I originally posted to this bug
report. It applies mainly to the "cdrom-detect" udeb, although I suggest
that the ISO volume label (such as "Debian 7.1.0 M-A 1") be included
somewhere in the initrd; currently it does not appear to be. As I said
previously, a
This message describes the motivation for the
"debian-iso-loopmount.diff" patch, which is reproduced above.
It was originally posted here:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2013/09/msg00509.html
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 03:08:48 -0700
From:
To: debian-boot@lists.debian
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 21:54:15 +0200
Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
> I have applied your patch to the debian-testing-amd64-netinst.iso and
> also included the loop.ko. This increased the size from 230.7 MB to
> 232.3 MB, i.e. by 0.7 %.
This must be because of differences in compression, or something el
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 13:10:01 +0200
Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
> wrote:
>
>> iso-scan is part of the Debian installer.
>>
>> However, it is only included in the hd-media initrd. There is no
>> reason to include it on the regular CD initrd, because isohybrid
>> allows mounting the USB stick directly
On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 20:55:29 +0200
Chris Debian wrote:
> I did test both GRUB_DISABLE_OS_PROBER=true and
> GRUB_DISABLE_OS_PROBER=false followed by a 'sudo update-grub', but it
> did not changed anything : my other OS is not detected.
>
> It seems that os-prober does not succeed in detecting the
This patch introduces a boot parameter, "loopmount=", which allows the
specification of a full pathname (relative to the root directory of some
block device) of an ISO image file which should be loop-mounted as the
Debian installer root filesystem.
The main purpose of this feature is to facilitate
you wrote:
> When I run a 'sudo update-grub', it only finds the Debian kernel and
> does not create any entry for my Ubuntu install.
There's an option called "GRUB_DISABLE_OS_PROBER" in /etc/default/grub
which may be relevant to your problem. See here:
http://www.gnu.org/software/grub/manual/htm
wrote:
> I have to wonder why this is so slow. We should be able to write
> about 100 MB/s sequentially to a recent HD, so 750 GB would take
> about 2 hours and not 36 hours.
I chose an encrypted swap volume, of size 16GB.
The Debian installer took close to an hour to wipe this. This result
is
On Thu, 5 Sep 2013 11:44:54 -0400
Joey Hess wrote:
>> Is there some boot parameter that can be given to the Debian
>> installer initrd to make it understand that it's running from a
>> loop-mounted ISO image file rather than a plain block device?
>>
>> This is a well established feature in some
On Thu, 5 Sep 2013 11:44:54 -0400
Joey Hess wrote:
>> in Ubuntu, the relevant parameter is "iso-scan/filename=".
>
> iso-scan is part of the Debian installer.
> I wrote it. Always nice to have my Debian work cited as another reason
> Ubuntu is better than Debian!
Well, it's better in the sense
Is there some boot parameter that can be given to the Debian installer
initrd to make it understand that it's running from a loop-mounted ISO
image file rather than a plain block device?
This is a well established feature in some distributions; for example,
in Ubuntu, the relevant parameter is "is
On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 16:45:26 -0300
Ben Armstrong wrote:
> the long and sordid tale of your bid to get attention for this bug
That's right; I wrote it up in detail, provided patches when asked to do
so, provided test scripts to demonstrate the correctness of those
patches, answered every question
On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 19:09:04 +0200
Christian PERRIER wrote:
> This mail is a very good argument to confirm that overcomplicated
> methods to make your point will just fail.
>
> If you have a point to make it, make ti. Once. With facts.
I supplied plenty of facts.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/
On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 12:45:55 -0300
Ben Armstrong wrote:
> Just take care in future that the style of communications you used
> triggered someone's "wetware spam filter" with a false positive.
I initially wrote up a detailed bug report, and then when somebody
suggested that the problem would get
It seems that Historical Revisionism, of the bad kind, is now in
operation at Debian, in that critical commentary about unapplied patches
is made to disappear down the memory hole, without leaving so much as a
trace on the relevant bug report.
If it were thought that the criticism was unfair, or i
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it
means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many
different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's
On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 13:53:30 +0200
Christian PERRIER wrote:
> I'd like to get other D-I people advice about including these changes
> *now* as thereis always a risk of regressions which, at this point of
> the release, we would like to avoid.
That's an important consideration. I offer the followi
On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 13:53:30 +0200
Christian PERRIER wrote:
> Thanks for your care providing a patch. Even if I don't give a great
> importance to this issue, some people seem to (including you) so
> there's no reason to not consider your patch.
Thanks for taking seriously, the fact that /other/
On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 17:33:04 +0200
"Didier 'OdyX' Raboud" wrote:
>> By defining a single environment variable, the new code can be
>> configured to use the binary, rather than decimal, values of the
>> suffixes {K, M, G, T} for both input and output, while retaining the
>> above features.
>
> To
On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 10:59:20 -0400
Joey Hess wrote:
> I hate to bring this news, but this cannot be used in the installer,
> because shell arrays are a bashism, and the installer uses busybox sh.
Thanks for pointing that out. It seems that shell arrays are more of a
ksh-ism; see the manual page f
wrote:
> I don't think anyone is trying to avoid a proper resolution of this
> bug. So the people who care mostly (and know what a gibibyte is)
> should start working on patches if they really want to get this fixed;
> this work will not come magically out of the blue.
See attached patch, and co
On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 14:11:05 +0200
Christian PERRIER wrote:
>> So if the partitioner invites people to specify their swap space, or
>> any other volume, in units of "gigabytes", which JUST ABOUT EVERYBODY
>> understands to mean 2^30 in that context, and instead it uses the
>> hard disk manufacture
> Severity set to 'wishlist' from 'important'
So if the partitioner invites people to specify their swap space, or any
other volume, in units of "gigabytes", which JUST ABOUT EVERYBODY
understands to mean 2^30 in that context, and instead it uses the hard
disk manufacturers' phony units which are
26 matches
Mail list logo
