Package: debootstrap
Version: 1.0.24
Severity: important
Hi,
now that makedev has priority extra instead of required,
the existence of basic devices nodes in a debootstrapped chroot (such
as /dev/random) purely relies on what is in the devices.tar.gz
provided by the debootstrap binary package.
1
Package: installation-reports
Boot method: CD
Image version: self-made installation CD with squeeze installer
Date: 2010-09-25
Machine: Self-made Desktop PC
Processor: AMD Athlon64 X2 3800+
Memory: 1GB
Partitions:
> Dateisystem Typ1K‐Blöcke Benutzt Verfügbar Ben% Eingehängt auf
> /dev/sd
Package: installation-reports
Boot method: CD
Image version: self-made installation CD with squeeze installer
Date: 2010-09-26
Machine: Asus Notebook Z7750
Processor: Intel Pentium M with 1,6GHz
Memory: 512MB
Partitions (df -Tl): not executed
Output of lspci -knn:
> 00:00.0 Host bridge [0600]
Quoting Bernhard (bewo...@online.de):
> Immediately after partitioning and formating of the harddisk, the
> installer stops with the german message:
>
> Debootstrap - Release Dateien konnten nicht heruntergeladen werden
>
> If you need further informations, please let me know.
That seems to be
Your message dated Sun, 26 Sep 2010 17:44:02 +0200
with message-id <20100926154402.gd25...@mykerinos.kheops.frmug.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#598114: Installation of squeeze successfully at
Athlon64 X2 3800+
has caused the Debian Bug report #598114,
regarding Installation of squeeze successfully
Christian PERRIER schrieb:
> Quoting Bernhard (bewo...@online.de):
>
>> Immediately after partitioning and formating of the harddisk, the
>> installer stops with the german message:
>>
>> Debootstrap - Release Dateien konnten nicht heruntergeladen werden
>>
>> If you need further informations, ple
Hi dear -boot people,
as you might know, I somehow took over the win32-loader developement for
some versions now. One major specificity of win32-loader is that it is
really hard to get tested: it has to be run on many different Windows™
versions, potentially breaking their boot.
I fear that m
intrig...@boum.org wrote:
> I haven't investigated this issue enough to tell the cause of the
> problem. A somewhat unclean build environment might be involved
I can't see how, nor can I reproduce it in that same build environment.
All I can think is that MAKEDEV somehow didn't create devices, or
On 2010-09-26 18:33 +0200, Joey Hess wrote:
> intrig...@boum.org wrote:
>> I haven't investigated this issue enough to tell the cause of the
>> problem. A somewhat unclean build environment might be involved
>
> I can't see how, nor can I reproduce it in that same build environment.
>
> All I can
Package: debootstrap
Version: 1.0.25
Severity: normal
debootstrap cannot currently be built on debian kfreebsd or hurd. While
build dep makedev is installable there, it is a no-op. So, the devices.tar.gz
creation code will make an empty tarball, and a check I've just
added will cause the build to
Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2010-09-26 18:33 +0200, Joey Hess wrote:
>
> > intrig...@boum.org wrote:
> >> I haven't investigated this issue enough to tell the cause of the
> >> problem. A somewhat unclean build environment might be involved
> >
> > I can't see how, nor can I reproduce it in that same
debootstrap_1.0.25_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
debootstrap_1.0.25.dsc
debootstrap_1.0.25.tar.gz
debootstrap_1.0.25_all.deb
debootstrap-udeb_1.0.25_all.udeb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon (running on host franck.debian.org)
--
To UN
Your message dated Sun, 26 Sep 2010 17:32:07 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#598080: fixed in debootstrap 1.0.25
has caused the Debian Bug report #598080,
regarding debootstrap: Empty devices.tar.gz
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
I
Accepted:
debootstrap-udeb_1.0.25_all.udeb
to main/d/debootstrap/debootstrap-udeb_1.0.25_all.udeb
debootstrap_1.0.25.dsc
to main/d/debootstrap/debootstrap_1.0.25.dsc
debootstrap_1.0.25.tar.gz
to main/d/debootstrap/debootstrap_1.0.25.tar.gz
debootstrap_1.0.25_all.deb
to main/d/debootstrap
base-installer_1.113_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
base-installer_1.113.dsc
base-installer_1.113.tar.gz
base-installer_1.113_all.udeb
bootstrap-base_1.113_amd64.udeb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon (running on host franck.debian.org)
Accepted:
base-installer_1.113.dsc
to main/b/base-installer/base-installer_1.113.dsc
base-installer_1.113.tar.gz
to main/b/base-installer/base-installer_1.113.tar.gz
base-installer_1.113_all.udeb
to main/b/base-installer/base-installer_1.113_all.udeb
bootstrap-base_1.113_amd64.udeb
to ma
Package: grub-installer
Severity: Important
Justification: cannot install grub on amd64 and perhaps others...
Hello,
I've open a bug #598062 for cdrom install, very verbose ( should not work
too late and when I'm tired )
So brievly : it's impossible with squeeze weekly build to install OS on
amd6
Joey Hess wrote:
> Assuming we want debootstrap to remain an arch-all package, which is
> convenient as it allows updating debootstrap very quickly, we need
> some way to build the linux-specific devices.tar.gz in a cross-platform way.
> One way would be to add a switch or environment variable that
Hello Joey,
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Joey Hess wrote:
> Alternatively, debootstrap could stop including the device tarball,
> and bind mounting /dev. (It already does something similar on kfreebsd.)
> However, this would mean a debootstrapped chroot would need to have its /dev
> remounted
Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Hello Joey,
>
> On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Alternatively, debootstrap could stop including the device tarball,
> > and bind mounting /dev. (It already does something similar on kfreebsd.)
> > However, this would mean a debootstrapped chroot woul
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 6:36 PM, Joey Hess wrote:
> Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> This looks to be the best alternative IMO. We need to do that for
>> /proc and /sys so /dev won't be a problem et all.
>
> Except that eg. pbuilder will mount /proc, but not /dev when using the
> chroot.
Yes but should
Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 6:36 PM, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Otavio Salvador wrote:
> >> This looks to be the best alternative IMO. We need to do that for
> >> /proc and /sys so /dev won't be a problem et all.
> >
> > Except that eg. pbuilder will mount /proc, but not /dev when u
Hello Joey,
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Joey Hess wrote:
> Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 6:36 PM, Joey Hess wrote:
>> > Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> >> This looks to be the best alternative IMO. We need to do that for
>> >> /proc and /sys so /dev won't be a problem et all.
Hello,
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> === What is known not to work ===
>
> The kfreebsd flavour cannot be selected together with the "stable" target;
> for obvious reasons.
This is not obvious for new users and win32-loader is very suitable
for new users to join
24 matches
Mail list logo
