On Monday 28 April 2008, James Westby wrote:
> I just tested that you can preseed the two plaintext questions and the
> correct password is set. If they are preseeded to different values you
> are given the error message, and then the opportunity to re-enter the
> password and confirmation.
Great.
On Mon, 2008-04-28 at 10:48 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> Good. I've committed the patch now with a few minor modifications.
>
Great, thanks.
> Yes. Both preseeding of an encrypted password and of plaintext passwords are
> possible and thus both should be tested. For plaintext passwords it could
>
tag 321109 pending
thanks
On Friday 25 April 2008, James Westby wrote:
> I tested yesterday with preseeding the grub-installer/password-crypted
> value with a crypted value that I generated with grub beforehand. I was
> able to use the uncrypted password to unlock grub after install.
Good. I've c
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tag 321109 pending
Bug#321109: no confirm password window
Tags were: pending patch
Tags added: pending
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs d
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 12:35:21PM +0100, James Westby wrote:
> I tested yesterday with preseeding the grub-installer/password-crypted
> value with a crypted value that I generated with grub beforehand. I was
> able to use the uncrypted password to unlock grub after install.
Great!
> I'm not sure
On Thu, 2008-04-17 at 18:08 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> Please do test it with preseeding too, both for clear text and encrypted.
> Note that you can also preseed by passing = at the boot
> prompt. You don't need to use a preconfiguration file.
Hi,
I tested yesterday with preseeding the grub-inst
On Thu, 2008-04-17 at 18:08 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Thursday 17 April 2008, James Westby wrote:
> > That's just because it follows the code that was there before, I'd
> > be happy to test it if you think that it would be necessary.
>
> Nope. The current code has a single ">", yours has ">>".
On Thursday 17 April 2008, James Westby wrote:
> > You read password-crypted to see if it is preseeded. This value
> > presumably already _is_ encrypted, but you still pass it through
> > 'password --md5'.
>
> The encryption call is in the else branch, and so it should not
> happen when the value w
On Thu, 2008-04-17 at 16:58 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> After a quick glance a couple of things look wrong.
>
Hi,
Thanks for the review.
> You read password-crypted to see if it is preseeded. This value presumably
> already _is_ encrypted, but you still pass it through 'password --md5'.
>
The
On Thursday 17 April 2008, James Westby wrote:
> Attached is a patch that myself and Colin Watson worked on, based
> on the patch from this bug report. It hopefully addresses all concerns
> that were raised about the existing patch, and updates it to the
> existing codebase.
>
> Please consider app
Hi,
Attached is a patch that myself and Colin Watson worked on, based
on the patch from this bug report. It hopefully addresses all concerns
that were raised about the existing patch, and updates it to the
existing codebase.
Please consider applying it. I would be happy to address any concerns
t
On Tuesday 15 August 2006 04:22, Christian Perrier wrote:
> Template: network-console/password-empty
> Type: text
> _Description: Empty password
> You entered an empty remote installation password, which is not allowed.
> Please choose a non-empty password.
I don't think "remote installation pa
> The one where I see a real difference is password/empty, which is
> different from user-setup and could be changed.
>
> Template: network-console/password-empty
> Type: text
> _Description: Password empty
> You seem to have entered an empty remote installation password.
> That is not secure.
On Monday 14 August 2006 16:21, Julian Graham wrote:
> Find attached a revised version of the patch that asks the questions
> together.
After looking at the patch a bit more I noticed that it conflicts with
current preseeding:
- it does not allow preseeding anymore because it empties password
- t
On Monday 14 August 2006 05:10, Christian Perrier wrote:
> (BTW, we should fix nextwork-console so that the very similar password
> confirmation prompt is worded similarly)
AFAICT only the short description for password-again is different. Fixed.
The one where I see a real difference is password/
Find attached a revised version of the patch that asks the questions together.
On 8/14/06, Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sunday 13 August 2006 22:38, Julian Graham wrote:
> The attached patch adds a password confirmation window to the
> grub-installer script (http://bugs.debian.org/32
On Sunday 13 August 2006 22:38, Julian Graham wrote:
> The attached patch adds a password confirmation window to the
> grub-installer script (http://bugs.debian.org/321109).
This patch asks the password as two separate questions (with a separate
"db_go" for each "db_input", while it is also possi
Please find attached a revised patch that includes the changes to the
template text.
On 8/14/06, Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Quoting Julian Graham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> tags 321109 patch
> thanks
>
> Oops, forgot the patch itself.
I have some comments about the wording:
> +T
Quoting Julian Graham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> tags 321109 patch
> thanks
>
> Oops, forgot the patch itself.
I have some comments about the wording:
> +Template: grub-installer/password-again
> +Type: password
> +_Description: Re-enter GRUB password:
> + Please enter the same GRUB password again t
tags 321109 patch
thanks
The attached patch adds a password confirmation window to the
grub-installer script (http://bugs.debian.org/321109). If the user
enters a password that differs from the first one supplied, they will
be notified and returned to the window containing the original
password
tags 321109 patch
thanks
Oops, forgot the patch itself.
grub-installer.patch
Description: Binary data
21 matches
Mail list logo
