Re: base-installer r53756 vs. console-setup

2009-03-23 Thread Colin Watson
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 12:39:30PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote: > On Tuesday 10 March 2009, Colin Watson wrote: > > I just rather belatedly noticed that r53756 breaks console-setup (or at > > least will once we switch to it and console-setup is installed by > > debootstrap). > > BTW > Do we really want

Re: base-installer r53756 vs. console-setup

2009-03-10 Thread Otavio Salvador
Frans Pop writes: > On Tuesday 10 March 2009, Colin Watson wrote: >> I just rather belatedly noticed that r53756 breaks console-setup (or at >> least will once we switch to it and console-setup is installed by >> debootstrap). > > BTW > Do we really want console-setup installed by debootstrap? >

Re: base-installer r53756 vs. console-setup

2009-03-10 Thread Frans Pop
> Do we really want console-setup installed by debootstrap? > Is it needed on completely headless systems such as NAS devices or > systems with only a dumb console such as S/390? Or in chroots for that matter. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: base-installer r53756 vs. console-setup

2009-03-10 Thread Frans Pop
On Tuesday 10 March 2009, Colin Watson wrote: > I just rather belatedly noticed that r53756 breaks console-setup (or at > least will once we switch to it and console-setup is installed by > debootstrap). BTW Do we really want console-setup installed by debootstrap? Is it needed on completely headl

Re: base-installer r53756 vs. console-setup

2009-03-10 Thread Frans Pop
On Tuesday 10 March 2009, Colin Watson wrote: > As far as I can see, from base-installer's point of view, this was just > for consistency with live-installer rather than to fix a particular > bug. Could we put it back the way it was, please? We could define > base-installer.d hooks as "before any p