On Monday 15 May 2006 14:33, Sven Luther wrote:
> (and we can't probably change it without another 6+ month flamewar with
> Ethan Benson),
This comment was unnecessary. Please keep old gripes out of mailing list
discussions. Especially as everybody is already aware of them.
> For all those reas
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 07:34:27AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > That said, another important point is, will we be using a separate
> > gtk-dfb 2.9/2.10 package set, or will we be using the main gtk debian
> > package ? In this second case, are the gtk-gnome folk ready to move to
> > gtk 2.10 for etc
On Sunday 14 May 2006 21:59, David Härdeman wrote:
> The only known bug so far is that the /target filesystem isn't cleanly
> unmounted when it's on an encrypted partition. Any suggestions on where
> to start looking?
Well, the installer just runs 'umount -a' in prebaseconfig's [1] 95umount
scrip
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 12:17:10AM +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-05-15 at 23:53 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 04:01:17PM +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2006-05-15 at 15:28 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > What framebuffer is used ? atyfb prob
On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 07:29:39PM -0400, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> On Thu, 11 May 2006 22:28:39 +0200
> Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ ... ]
> > If you would like commit access to the d-i SVN repository, please let
> > us know your alioth account name.
alioth is http://alioth.debian
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 08:11, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Eh, if you want to do gtk-dfb, you can't. The choice between using the
> DirectFB backend or the X11 backend has to be done at compile time. Or
> am I missing something?
No, you're not. This is an issue and it's going to take some advanced
li
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 08:05:08AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Sunday 14 May 2006 11:44, Geert Stappers wrote:
> > Keep the current d-i images as they exist
> > and add extra images for g-i.
>
> That would lead to an explosion of the number of images though which is
> not what we or the debian-c
On 5/16/06, Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For all those reasons, i would build the netboot g-i images, it costs
> not much to build them, and since they are not going to be included on
> the isos ...
I will leave the decision on whether or not to include netboot images to
Colin. Technic
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 08:09:36AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Sunday 14 May 2006 12:18, Sven Luther wrote:
> > It is usefull to keep those images relatively small, but given their
> > current size, growing from 250 to 300 MB or whatever it is, will
> > probably pass un-noticed.
>
> Right. That i
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 01:11:12AM +0300, Eddy Petrişor wrote:
> So, will you disable them, or should I try to test your images, too ?
> (it seems to me that there shouldn't be differences, but you'll never
> know :)
There shouldn't be a difference, but if you have time, it doesn't cost
anything t
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 08:12:04AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Monday 15 May 2006 15:32, Davide Viti wrote:
> > I did one hour ago or so and it booted fine
>
> Hmm. I'm guessing that you've tried the mini.iso, and not one of the
> larger images as they indeed were completely broken. Will hopeful
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 12:24:55AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 May 2006 00:11, Eddy Petrişor wrote:
> > So, will you disable them, or should I try to test your images, too ?
> > (it seems to me that there shouldn't be differences, but you'll never
> > know :)
>
> They should preferably
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 08:17:42AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Monday 15 May 2006 14:33, Sven Luther wrote:
> > (and we can't probably change it without another 6+ month flamewar with
> > Ethan Benson),
>
> This comment was unnecessary. Please keep old gripes out of mailing list
> discussions.
101 - 113 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
