On 15.07.2012 17:37, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jul 15, Bastian Blank wrote:
>
>> Can you provide the number of the bugreport requesting removal of the
>> udeb? However, why is there a udeb called libkmod2-udeb then?
> It was discussed on IRC, I think with the busybox maintainer.
Well, if think it
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 16:33:26 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jul 15, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>
> > This is interesting, because the last time I tried statically linking
> > the udeb it was bigger than the dynamic one.
> And now I remembered: the udeb is not static because the current udev
> (w
On Jul 15, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> This is interesting, because the last time I tried statically linking
> the udeb it was bigger than the dynamic one.
And now I remembered: the udeb is not static because the current udev
(which I failed to package timely, and now may be too late for
wheezy...)
Mark Hymers (15/07/2012):
> At the release / boot team's request, the -udeb and source has been
> placed back in unstable for now. I've also re-opened the removal bug.
> Once d-i is properly transitioned to kmod, please let us know and
> we'll remove it from unstable again.
Thanks, appreciated.
On Sun, 15, Jul, 2012 at 03:09:46PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois spoke thus..
> Marco d'Itri (15/07/2012):
> > WTF are you talking about?
>
> Obviously: #681285
At the release / boot team's request, the -udeb and source has been
placed back in unstable for now. I've also re-opened the removal bug.
On
Marco d'Itri (15/07/2012):
> It was discussed on IRC, I think with the busybox maintainer.
Because of course the busybox maintainer (on IRC) is the right point of
contact for anything d-i related?
Hint: no.
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 15:37:05 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jul 15, Bastian Blank wrote:
>
> > Can you provide the number of the bugreport requesting removal of the
> > udeb? However, why is there a udeb called libkmod2-udeb then?
> It was discussed on IRC, I think with the busybox maintain
On Jul 15, Bastian Blank wrote:
> Can you provide the number of the bugreport requesting removal of the
> udeb? However, why is there a udeb called libkmod2-udeb then?
It was discussed on IRC, I think with the busybox maintainer.
> > module-init-tools is not coming back, if d-i still needs somet
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 03:05:17PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> WTF are you talking about? We switched from module-init-tools to kmod
> months ago, and the last time I discussed d-i and modules with
> debian-boot people my understanding was that modules are now loaded by
> busybox.
Can you prov
Marco d'Itri (15/07/2012):
> WTF are you talking about?
Obviously: #681285
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hi!
On 15.07.2012 14:59, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
thanks to the totally uncoordinated switch from module-init-tools to
kmod, d-i is badly broken. We're in freeze, neither debian-boot or
debian-release were contacted, that's a huge success!
Please unfuck this. And make sure you contact debian-boo
On Jul 15, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> thanks to the totally uncoordinated switch from module-init-tools to
> kmod, d-i is badly broken. We're in freeze, neither debian-boot or
> debian-release were contacted, that's a huge success!
WTF are you talking about? We switched from module-init-tools to km
Hi,
thanks to the totally uncoordinated switch from module-init-tools to
kmod, d-i is badly broken. We're in freeze, neither debian-boot or
debian-release were contacted, that's a huge success!
Please unfuck this. And make sure you contact debian-boot@ for any
further udeb addition or removal.
N
13 matches
Mail list logo
