On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 06:23:11PM -0700, Chris Tillman wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 07:47:41PM -0700, Chris Tillman wrote:
> >>
> >> http://www.netbsd.org/Ports/macppc/SystemDisk-tutorial/of105patch.html
> >>
> >> There's a link there for a floppy-image Mac OS that might be just the ticket
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 07:47:41PM -0700, Chris Tillman wrote:
>>
>> http://www.netbsd.org/Ports/macppc/SystemDisk-tutorial/of105patch.html
>>
>> There's a link there for a floppy-image Mac OS that might be just the ticket
>> for you.
>
> OK heres some random thoughts...
>
> some oldworld machi
On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 07:47:41PM -0700, Chris Tillman wrote:
>
> http://www.netbsd.org/Ports/macppc/SystemDisk-tutorial/of105patch.html
>
> There's a link there for a floppy-image Mac OS that might be just the ticket
> for you.
OK heres some random thoughts...
some oldworld machines can have
On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 10:03:00PM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
>
> FYI, is there a URL for such patches? Even if it requires MacOS to
> run?
you simply run apple's `SystemDisk' control panel and then quit. it
installs a large number of nvramrc patches on most oldworld
machines. there is a link
>>> not really, because some oldworlds always have an nvramrc. apple
>>> apparently found some bugs in thier firmware, and rather then just fix
>>> them they wrote nvramrc patches and burned them into the ROM.
>>
>> FYI, is there a URL for such patches? Even if it requires MacOS to
>> run?
>>
>
>> not really, because some oldworlds always have an nvramrc. apple
>> apparently found some bugs in thier firmware, and rather then just fix
>> them they wrote nvramrc patches and burned them into the ROM.
>
> FYI, is there a URL for such patches? Even if it requires MacOS to
> run?
>
> /me is
Ethan Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> this is really not much to ask of the base system. at
> the moment there is only two packages im aware of that violate these
> conditions:
>
> powerpc-utils
> quik
Quik at least is fixed in incoming. I had to re-upload the .4 NMU
just now due to a ca
On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 02:39:51PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 01:02:44PM -0700, Matt Kraai wrote:
> >
> > They changed it to ignore archive permissions, and leave the
> > existing permissions unchanged. This sucks if, for instance, the
> > modules installation step sets
On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 01:02:44PM -0700, Matt Kraai wrote:
>
> They changed it to ignore archive permissions, and leave the
> existing permissions unchanged. This sucks if, for instance, the
> modules installation step sets /lib to be world writable.
is that whats happening? if so that should
On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 02:35:56PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 08:21:21AM -0600, Matt Kraai wrote:
> >
> > I don't understand your question. The base-files package contains
> > most of the system directories, and the permissions are set
> > correctly therein. When BusyB
On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 02:51:41AM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 11:14:14AM +0100, Richard Hirst wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 02:53:39PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 01:35:16PM -0500, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
> > > > According to Richard Hir
On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 11:14:14AM +0100, Richard Hirst wrote:
> The .deb in question is gcc-3.0-base, comes from gcc-3.0 source. I have
> included it in debootstrap for hppa because libstdc++3 depends on it.
> apt depends on libstdc++3, etc.
Not that you've sent me a patch...
> Having said tha
On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 11:14:14AM +0100, Richard Hirst wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 02:53:39PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 01:35:16PM -0500, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
> > > According to Richard Hirst, gcc-3.0 (at least for hppa) also has an
> > > issue.
> >
> > why
On Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 02:53:39PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 01:35:16PM -0500, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
> > According to Richard Hirst, gcc-3.0 (at least for hppa) also has an
> > issue.
>
> why is gcc in the base system may i ask?
The .deb in question is gcc-3.0-bas
On Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 01:35:16PM -0500, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
> > dpkg's handling of diverted conffiles i don't really know). packages
> > in base should also not be asking questions in postinst, or blinding
> > running config programs *cough* quik *cough*. they should at the very
>
> quik
On Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 05:56:08AM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 08:07:43AM -0500, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
> >
> > First, I agree with you. However, my question is *what* is broken? Should
> > dpkg know about DEBIAN_FRONTEND? How do conffile prompts get handled
> > otherwi
On Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 08:07:43AM -0500, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
>
> First, I agree with you. However, my question is *what* is broken? Should
> dpkg know about DEBIAN_FRONTEND? How do conffile prompts get handled
> otherwise? Certainly there should be an elegant way to install a bunch
> of pac
On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 02:30:47PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 10:10:42AM -0500, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
> >
> > powerpc-utils wants to update a conffile. The prompt fails because stdin
> > is /dev/null. You then get repeat 20 failures of dpkg because
> > powerpc-utils n
On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 04:31:01AM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> * Other really annoying problems (but not blocking 2.3.5 release)
> dhcp is failing after the first boot -- is debootstrap grabbing
> dhcp-client when it installs base?
Nope, it wasn't; fixed in today's unstable though, fwiw. (0.1.1
On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 08:21:21AM -0600, Matt Kraai wrote:
>
> I don't understand your question. The base-files package contains
> most of the system directories, and the permissions are set
> correctly therein. When BusyBox tar is used by debootstrap to
> extract this package, it doesn't rese
On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 10:10:42AM -0500, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
>
> powerpc-utils wants to update a conffile. The prompt fails because stdin
> is /dev/null. You then get repeat 20 failures of dpkg because
> powerpc-utils never configures. This should be fixed in
> debootstrap-0.1.10. I usually
Ethan Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>im not sure what is causing this, i did find that man-db and groff
>were in a brokenly installed state because groff depends on
>groff-base. bug filed against debootstrap.
Note that I'm trying to get a groff upload out before dinstall tonight,
as 1.17 b
On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 12:47:31AM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 04:31:01AM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> > debootstrap is still saying: 'Failure trying to run: dpkg
> > --force-auto-select --force-overwrite --force'
>
> it would be nice if we could get more data as to wha
On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 06:01:00AM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 07:51:46AM -0600, Matt Kraai wrote:
> > I tested the i386 images the other day and again last night to
> > make sure I wasn't halucinating. The BusyBox tar issue (bug
> > #99627) is present on these floppies a
On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 07:51:46AM -0600, Matt Kraai wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 04:31:01AM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> >
> > Well, on powerpc at least, the "configure base" step is getting
> > skipped by default. This leads to lack of /etc/fstab and other evil
> > conditions.
> >
> > on
a few notes on my just finished install attempt
On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 12:47:31AM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> > debootstrap is still saying: 'Failure trying to run: dpkg
> > --force-auto-select --force-overwrite --force'
>
> it would be nice if we could get more data as to whats really cau
On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 04:31:01AM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
>
> Well, on powerpc at least, the "configure base" step is getting
> skipped by default. This leads to lack of /etc/fstab and other evil
> conditions.
>
> on booting into my new system, I didn't have the right inittab in
> place; i
On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 12:47:31AM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 04:31:01AM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> > debootstrap is still saying: 'Failure trying to run: dpkg
> > --force-auto-select --force-overwrite --force'
>
> it would be nice if we could get more data as to what
On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 04:31:01AM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> Also, I need some poeple on the debian-boot list to file bugs as
> appropriate against debootstrap and such...
>
>
>
> * Other really annoying problems (but not blocking 2.3.5 release)
>
> dhcp is failing after the first boot --
Well, on powerpc at least, the "configure base" step is getting
skipped by default. This leads to lack of /etc/fstab and other evil
conditions.
on booting into my new system, I didn't have the right inittab in
place; it gave me the "true" inittab instead
I have uploaded i386 and powerpc images
30 matches
Mail list logo
