galatiacosecdohertycocktailburglarboisterousmightalhambrahorizontal
ut countywide backdrop roger emitter relic anatomic allocate ajax parboil beachcomb depress descent appalachia complementary age twine hurst neither
cachalot poach cope conductance idle invasive plod transcend
argon
reassign 263575 debian-installer
retitle 263575 Some LANG values are dangerous (?)
thanks
On Thu, 5 Aug 2004, Kenshi Muto wrote:
> Package: base-files
> Version: 3.0.15
> Severity: wishlist
> Tags: d-i
>
> Hi,
>
> d-i writes LANG which is chosen by user on /etc/environment.
> This is generally go
Package: libdebian-installer
Version: 0.17
This package does not compile under GNU/Hurd because there is no
PATH_MAX there. The following patch makes it to compile:
diff -ru libdebian-installer-0.17.orig/src/system/dpkg.c
libdebian-installer-0.17/src/system/dpkg.c
--- libdebian-installer-0.17.or
Hi.
While compiling packages for GNU/K*BSD systems I noticed that there
are a number of packages (in debian-installer, I think) which generate
Arch: all packages in their binary-arch targets.
Could someone please care about this, or do you want detailed bug
reports about all of them?
Thanks.
-
Package: cdrom-detect
Version: 0.38
Tags: patch
The udeb produced by this source package is Architecture: all, so it
should be generated by the binary-indep target, not by binary-arch.
Patch follows:
diff -ru cdrom-detect-0.38.orig/debian/rules cdrom-detect-0.38/debian/rules
--- cdrom-detect-0.3
Package: baseconfig-udeb
Version: 0.020
Tags: patch
The udeb produced by the source is Architecture: all, so it should be
generated by the binary-indep target, not by binary-arch.
Patch follows:
diff -ru baseconfig-udeb-0.020.orig/debian/rules baseconfig-udeb-0.020/debian/rules
--- baseconfig-ud
Package: prebaseconfig
Version: 0.42
Tags: patch
The udeb produced by this source package is Architecture: all, so
it should be generated in the binary-indep target, not in binary-arch.
Patch follows:
diff -ru prebaseconfig-0.42.orig/debian/rules prebaseconfig-0.42/debian/rules
--- prebaseconfig
Package: iso-scan
Version: 0.06
Tags: patch
The udebs produced by this source package are both Architecture: all, so
they should be generated in the binary-indep target, not in binary-arch.
Patch follows:
diff -ru iso-scan-0.06.orig/debian/rules iso-scan-0.06/debian/rules
--- iso-scan-0.06.orig/
Package: userdevfs
Version: 0.03
Tags: patch
This package produces an udeb which is Arch: all, so invoking
binary-arch should not do anything (currently, binary-arch depends
on binary-indep, which is wrong).
[ While we are at it, the comment saying "this builds a .udeb" would fit
much better in
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Got a new machine and installed Debian (identified as 3.0r1).
> Everything went fairly smoothly.
>
> [Layout microflaw in "Choose the Language":
>For German, "de-" should be "de -".]
>
> [Got ext2 - no choice offered?]
The default kernel for
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It is undesirable to run inappropriate services.
> It is a security risk and takes time at boot and shutdown.
> The number of daemons is really not very high, so the
> installation script is allowed to, and indeed should, tell me
> for each one what i
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> [during installation of a new Debian system - select All packages]
> >> No conversation at all should occur while files are being installed on-disk.
> >> On the other hand, no daemons or so should be started without confirmation.
> >> A security ri
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, Falk Hueffner wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > A few days ago I installed a Debian system (V3.0r1).
> > When emacs is invoked it says "No /etc/mailname. Reverting to default..."
> > and waits for 3 seconds. Of course this is very undesirable.
> >
> > Something is broke
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, June Hiraki wrote:
> I have a home page, and you had better take your home page off my
> computer before I call the Better Business Bureau! Who the hell do
> you think you are, installing this shit operating system on my
> computer without even asking me first?
>
> You'd bett
Package: autopartkit
Version: 0.79
I have been asked to add /media in base-files to follow the FHS standard,
which I have just done, but of course adding /media will not make our
system more FHS compliant unless we actually use /media/cdrom instead
of /cdrom and such.
I believe this patch is the
Package: aboot-installer
Version: 0.0.10
Tags: patch
The debian/control file for this package says Architecture: alpha, so
the binary should be generated by debian/rules binary-arch target, not
by binary-indep as it currently happens.
Patch follows:
diff -ru aboot-installer-0.0.10.orig/debian/ru
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> Package: modconf
> Version: 0.2.44
> Severity: important
> Justification: section 2.3.3
>
> Your package does not comply with the policy as it does not provide
> a proper extended descrition. Policy section 2.3.3 states:
>
> The desc
reassign 766459 debootstrap
retitle 766459 debootstrap: should not try to configure base-files before
/etc/passwd has the usual users in a Debian system
thanks
[ Retitled because the predependency on awk in the subject is quite old
and most probably has nothing to do with this ].
On Thu, 23 Oc
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 12:08:50PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> for the avoidance of doubt: I have used debootstrap 1.0.48+deb7u1...
Ok, so the problem is that in wheezy, deboostrap is no longer able to
create a chroot of jessie or sid.
IMHO, this is definitely worthy to be fixed in a point rele
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 01:11:40PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Instead, the work of debootstrap is precisely to guess the right order
> > in which packages should be configured so that everything work.
> >
> > In other words, essential pac
I'm going to reply to Julien first, then to Michael.
On Mon, 27 Oct 2014, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 08:35:14 +, Michael Tautschnig wrote:
> I agree this should be fixed in base-files.
Bugs should be fixed where they are. If base-files, or any other
package, essential or
On Mon, 27 Oct 2014, Michael Tautschnig wrote:
> > In principle, every essential package may depend on any other, and the
> > set of real dependencies may change over time, so it's natural that
> > debootstrap needs minor adjustments from time to time.
>
> So would you expect some sort of versione
On Mon, 27 Oct 2014, Michael Tautschnig wrote:
> I'm hoping this is not going to be too philosophical, so I'll enlist the facts
> first (please let me know if I got any of them wrong):
>
> debootstrap'ing a system fails, because
>
> - chown root:root ... won't work when invoked from base-files'
On Mon, 27 Oct 2014, Michael Tautschnig wrote:
+ [ ! -f /usr/info/dir ]
+ [ ! -f /usr/share/info/dir ]
+ install_from_default /usr/share/base-files/info.dir /usr/share/info/dir
+ [ ! -f /usr/share/info/dir ]
+ cp -p /usr/share/base-files/info.dir /usr/share/info/dir
+ chmod 644 /usr/share/info/dir
For the record, base-files postinst had three lines like this
chown root:root whatever
I've dropped all of them in base-files_7.10.
Thanks.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2014, Michael Tautschnig wrote:
> Then maybe take the first sentence in 3.8 Essential packages
> instead: "Essential is defined as the minimal set of functionality
> that must be available and usable on the system at all times, even
> when packages are in the "Unpacked" state." If
[ Trimming Cc list completely. After this email there is little more I
have to say about this ].
On Mon, 27 Oct 2014, Michael Tautschnig wrote:
> Admittedly, all that *I* want is a working debootstrap, so I'm also ok just
> having the changes in base-files for now (or maybe also in debootstrap)
reassign 767999 debootstrap
thanks
People who do not understand the essential flag keep filing bugs
against base-files.
Kind debootstrap maintainers: I think it's about time that you make an
upload for stable fixing this. I've heard that the fix is already in
git, so apparently it's just a matter
reassign 767999 debootstrap
thanks
Adam Borowski, STOP this insanity!
STOP IT!
> > (And you should really read the full logs for Bug#766459 to understand
> > this instead of killing the messenger
>
> The guilty party for this bug is either base-files or base-passwd.
Wrong. It's debootstrap ins
On Wed, 5 Nov 2014, Adam Borowski wrote:
> How do you propose changing debootstrap on already burned CDs?
I don't. Instead, those having a buggy version of debootstrap in a
burned CD should better try to find a non buggy version on Internet.
Proposing that we should make the entire Debian archiv
On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 11:04:55AM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Mittwoch, 5. November 2014, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Adam Borowski, STOP this insanity!
> > STOP IT!
>
> It seems to me that you are quite upset about this bug, yet I fail
> to see why, really.
Yes,
On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 06:05:59AM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> For reasons I explained in #767999, hacking debootstrap to configure
> base-passwd and base-files in a specific order is neither sufficient nor
> necessary. It does work around the problem for those running debootstrap
> from fully u
Note: dpkg 1.17.21 has migrated to testing, and, as a result, the
current debootstrap in wheezy is now unable to create chroots for both
jessie and sid (previously it was only sid and jessie still worked).
As of today, in jessie we still have base-files 7.6.
So, as I suspected, the recent changes
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 02:06:07PM +, Michael Tautschnig wrote:
> [ BCC'ing Santiago, Holger, Adam, Cyril ]
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'm refraining from quoting the preceding mails as most of you will have those
> in their inbox, and I'd rather summarise the si
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 10:44:40PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > B) If base-passwd violates policy, then base-passwd is buggy.
>
> I say it is, but since the only consumer that matters is base-files, it
> might be safer to change the latter.
The "only consumer that matters"? What do you mean?
Package: src:debian-installer-netboot-images
Version: 20170615+deb9u3
Tags: ftbfs
Dear Debian Installer people:
Even when we allow network access in the autobuilder, building this
package no longer works since version 20170615+deb9u1.
-
Package: src:debian-installer-netboot-images
Version: 20170615+deb9u5
Severity: serious
Tags: ftbfs
Dear maintainer:
I tried to build this package in buster but it failed:
[...]
debian/rules build-indep
dh build-in
Package: debootstrap
Version: 1.0.128+nmu2
Severity: important
Tags: patch
Dear maintainer:
Because Debian has decided that bookworm will have
usr-merge by default even for building packages,
I would expect usr-merge to be enabled by default
in all cases, including when using the buildd profile.
El 23/2/23 a las 21:38, Luca Boccassi escribió:
It's too soon for this. I think the right time will be the first point
release of Bookworm - at that point we can get the buildds to switch
too. But the release should be built in the current default as per
CTTE's instructions.
The buildds already
El 23/2/23 a las 22:26, Luca Boccassi escribió:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 at 20:50, Santiago Vila wrote:
The buildds already did the switch several months ago.
Wait, what? Specific changes were made to debootstrap in order to
allow the buildd machines to stay un-merged, as the CTTE wanted,
Can
severity 1031828 normal
tags 1031828 - patch
retitle 1031828 debootstrap: Please document --usr-merge option in --help output
thanks
El 24/2/23 a las 0:12, Luca Boccassi escribió:
Please see:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2022/09/msg5.html
Ok, did read, but also too long, and that
Package: apt-setup
Version: 1:0.177
Tags: patch
Hello.
After trying debian-installer alpha2 today I've noticed there is an
error in debian/po/es.po for the string "release updates",
introduced in commit 11c8e244 dated 2023-02-07.
Apparently, somebody has misinterpreted it as if "release" acted
El 28/9/23 a las 11:50, Julien Cristau escribió:
I still think that is absolutely the wrong thing to do, and makes
debootstrap more fragile for no good reason.
Julien, I believe you are mixing two different things here.
(A) What this bug is really about.
(B) What the effect of the bug is.
Th
El 10/10/23 a las 13:46, Luca Boccassi escribió:
Given the list of affected packages is short (and it's all about
tzdata IIRC), how about we wait until that list is down to zero (and
if you have time, maybe you could help with that?), and then merge
this change? That way we don't add instability,
2.0.48-1%2Bb1&stamp=1698686860&raw=0
This was reported already by Santiago as #1027381 last year and Paul Gevers
quickly did another upload of src:siridb-server fixing this.
So if riscv keeps being part of the release arches for trixie, then the FTBFS
bugs reported by Santiago will have re
Hello Luca.
Thanks a lot for implementing this!
I'm going to answer to an old message of yours, because
I think that things have changed a little bit since then.
El 18/10/23 a las 19:17, Luca Boccassi escribió:
We can do an upload, but note that it won't have any effect on package
builds, give
Package: src:debootstrap
Version: 1.0.128+nmu2+deb12u1
Dear maintainer:
Please make debootstrap in bookworm to follow the same rules as debootstrap in
trixie/sid
when creating a buildd chroot of trixie/sid (i.e. install only build-essential
packages).
Rationale and full explanation here:
htt
reassign 1055583 debian-installer
thanks
Dear debian-installer people:
In this bug report, I'm asked to provide /efi as a mount point for the EFI
partition.
Given that base-files does not even contain /boot/efi (the supposedly "old"
location),
I believe this is a decision for you to make, hen
Package: src:debian-installer
Version: 20230607+deb12u5
Severity: serious
Tags: ftbfs
Dear maintainer:
During a rebuild of all packages in unstable, your package failed to build:
[...]
Install main build dependenci
El 20/6/24 a las 1:03, Cyril Brulebois escribió:
Cc-ing the wb team for information about those huge logs. I don't have
any metrics, but that's the kind of size that seems way higher than it
should be.
Hi. Some metrics for you, from my build log collection:
-rw-r--r-- 1 master master133965
Package: src:installation-guide
Version: 20230623
Severity: serious
Tags: ftbfs
Dear maintainer:
During a rebuild of all packages in unstable, your package failed to build:
[...]
debian/rules build
rm -f build-sta
Package: src:win32-loader
Version: 0.10.6
Severity: serious
Tags: ftbfs
Dear maintainer:
During a rebuild of all packages in unstable, your package failed to build:
[...]
debian/rules binary
dpkg-query: no package
reassign 1076889 texlive-lang-french
retitle 1076889 LaTeX error in French document
affects 1076889 + src:installation-guide
found 1076889 2024.20240706-1
close 1076889 2024.20240706-2
thanks
Hi. This is most probably the bug above, so it's already fixed.
Thanks.
[ Adding 837...@bugs.debian.org and the submitter to Cc for the reasons
explained below ].
El 22/11/22 a las 13:09, Guillem Jover escribió:
So it seems to me we have a bunch of packages that are prio:required
but not Essential (some have switched to Protected:yes), that should
get their priori
reassign 263575 debian-installer
retitle 263575 Some LANG values are dangerous (?)
thanks
[ Forgot to Cc: control last time, sorry ].
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 09:24:41AM +0100, Alfred Hanny wrote:
> Why is it, that if i purge unwanted packages (like zeitgeist), apt
> starts removing my whole gnome desktop?
> This stupid behaviour cost me a whole day of re-installing my system.
Please try debian-user, this list (debian-boot) is fo
Package: tasksel
Version: 3.33
The source for this package contains an extra directory "tasks/po/INTER"
which apparently is just an old copy of "tasks/po". Suggested fix:
git rm tasks/po/INTER/*
Thanks.
P.S. Discovered by accident. I was trying to understand why this
package does currently not
Package: src:apt-setup
Version: 1:0.102
User: sanv...@debian.org
Usertags: binary-indep
Severity: important
Dear maintainer:
I tried to build this package with "dpkg-buildpackage -A"
(i.e. only architecture-independent packages), and it failed:
---
Package: src:base-installer
Version: 1.157
User: sanv...@debian.org
Usertags: binary-indep
Severity: important
Dear maintainer:
I tried to build this package with "dpkg-buildpackage -A"
(i.e. only architecture-independent packages), and it failed:
Package: src:installation-guide
Version: 20161031
Severity: important
Dear maintainer:
I tried to build this package in stretch with "dpkg-buildpackage -A"
(which is what the "Arch: all" autobuilder would do to build it)
but it failed:
On Sat, Jan 07, 2017 at 11:20:35PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Could you also post build logs which are successful?
Ok, all the build logs I have, same place as before:
https://people.debian.org/~sanvila/build-logs/installation-guide/
As usual, if you find a fix please consider uploading in
On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 12:55:38AM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Control: tags -1 + pending
>
> Hello,
>
> Santiago Vila, on Sat 07 Jan 2017 23:37:03 +0100, wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 07, 2017 at 11:20:35PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> >
> > > Coul
Package: src:win32-loader
Version: 0.8.1
Severity: serious
Dear maintainer:
I tried to build this package in stretch with "dpkg-buildpackage -A"
but it failed:
[...]
debian/rules build-indep
/bin/sh: 1: test: xload
reassign 835516 sed
thanks
Oops. Not.
Reading the message by Adam carefully, this is a bug in sed.
I would hope the release managers would allow this to be fixed in a
point release.
Thanks.
reassign 835516 debian-installer
thanks
I think this is a bug in debian-installer, because debootstrap is
apparently not affected by the umask setting (be it 002 or 022).
Reassigning accordingly.
Dear d-i people: Short summary: New systems installed from Debian 8
netinst image have /bin with mod
On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 04:50:27PM -0300, Daniel Bareiro wrote:
> El sábado 27 de agosto del 2016 a las 20:50:28 +0200,
> Santiago Vila escribió:
> > Reading the message by Adam carefully, this is a bug in sed.
> >
> > I would hope the release managers would allow this to
> I did not know this Lintian tool used internally to verify the packages
> automatically. That's interesting. In the thread mentioned by Adam, Yves
> said that Lintian is used on testing and unstable, but he was not sure
> if it is also used to stable. Do you know if that's the case?
The automati
Is this an issue at all considering the changes in debootstrap version 1.0.82
regarding devices.tar.gz?
Thanks.
On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 07:40:15PM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
> | Setting up perl-base (5.22.2-5) ...
> | dpkg: error: --install needs at least one package archive file argument
> `
>
> Looking at the code in scripts/sid, it is "x_core_install mawk" which
> fails here. The reason is that ma
Package: src:debian-installer-netboot-images
Version: 20150422+deb8u4.b1
Severity: serious
Dear maintainer:
I tried to build this package in stretch with "dpkg-buildpackage -A"
(which is what the "Arch: all" autobuilder would do to build it)
but it failed:
---
On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 12:22:31AM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Santiago Vila (2016-10-04):
> > I am aware that this is the same version in jessie, but if it's not
> > appropriate for stretch, then we might better have this package
> > autoremoved f
On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 02:48:12AM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Now that perl is out of the base system again, I've had a look at the
> figures of a base system install. We're ~80Mib bigger, from 277MiB to
> 360MiB:
>
> - aptitude is not installed by default any more -> -18MiB
> - grub got 12Mi
On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 12:13:52PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Santiago Vila, le Sat 29 Nov 2014 10:49:43 +0100, a écrit :
> > Maybe wget is too bloated for the base system?
>
> Having a wget available has been quite convenient to me several times
> to easily transfer a file
For the record:
I managed to do this a long time ago. Maybe starting with Debian 6.0,
which is the release where multi-arch netinst CD image was only for
amd64 and i386 (i.e. no more powerpc).
I agree that the wiki seems a good place to document this, if I find the time.
Thanks.
--
To UNSUBSC
Package: boot-floppies
Version: 3.0.22-2002-04-03
A Release file created by hand made the boot floppies to complain in this way:
no entry for main/binary-i386/Packages
but there was an entry for main/binary-i386/Packages.gz.
apt-ftparchive(1) is quite complex and not very easy to understand.
I
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> 2.- someone to step up an explain how to disable this behavior
Maybe something like this:
1. In /etc/mkinitrd/mkinitrd.conf, set:
DELAY=0
2. Then regenerate your ramdisk image, for example:
cd /boot
mkinitrd -o initrd.img-2.4.18-k7 /lib/modules/2.4.18-k
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> Now that I think of it this might be an issue with self-installed
> kernels. I'm going to document this behavior in the Manual, commit the
> changes and close the bug. Of course, woody does *not* install 2.4 kernels
> IIRC.
The default install does no
Howland, Curtis wrote:
> Where might one find documentation on this bf2.4 kernel?
See dists/woody/main/disks-i386/current/bf2.4 as I said...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Package: boot-floppies
Version: 3.0.22
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
I wish the /etc/fstab file to fit in 80 columns if possible, so that
it is more readable in console. It usually does not because the
installation program seems to think "defaults" is a required option,
but in fact this keyword
> The problem I have is that booting with loadlin from a small Dos partition
> the system hangs
>
> message: Uncompressing Linux
> Invalid compressed format ERR=1
> -- SYSTEM HALTED
>
> Also with a init
reassign 175687 boot-floppies
thanks
On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Josip Rodin wrote:
> Package: base-files
> Severity: wishlist
>
> - Forwarded message from "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
>
> To Whom It May Concern:
>
> I am writing in regard of "Debian FAQ" to the addresses that
On Tue, 17 Apr 2001, James D Strandboge wrote:
> [...]
> FIX: I simply added the '--no-name' flag to gzip and the scripts works fine.
Hmm, is this not what --stdout is for?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/etc/modules should *not* be conffile (Bug #74540), but instead,
it should be created in the postinst if it does not exist.
Policy is very clear about this, because there is not a default
/etc/modules file which satisfies everybody.
Any chance to get this bug fixed before woody release?
--
To
On Sun, 13 May 2001, Santiago Garcia Mantinan wrote:
> Could base-files (the package) as has been sugested by some here, be the
> right place for it?
>
> If base-files is not the right place... where do we put it?
debianutils?
[ Don't know exactly what termwrap does, but cur
Slightly off-topic question:
It is ok at all for apt to use /cdrom as a mount point?
(I think it violates the spirit of FHS when it says mount points in /
are just a convenience for the user and they are not to be used
directly by any software).
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
w
Hello.
I've received a bug report requesting /boot to be made root.root and
mode 755 in base-files. This is currently root.disk and mode 2775.
Does anybody remember the reason for the current permissions?
(If not, I'll change them as suggested).
Thanks.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PRO
Hello.
I've been suggested to remove the /initrd directory from base-files, which
I will probably do unless somebody tells me it is required in some way.
Thanks.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jordi:
> First error seems to be in recode. It's not translating capitalized
> characters like "Ó" to ibmpc,
Try using "850" instead of "ibmpc". I believe ibmpc was an alias for
codepage 437 (which does not have accented uppercase letters).
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a s
On Mon, 26 Nov 2001, Jordi Mallach wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 05:21:29PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > First error seems to be in recode. It's not translating capitalized
> > > characters like "Ó" to ibmpc,
> > Try using "850"
Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include
> Adam Di Carlo wrote on Wed Nov 28, 2001 um 08:09:35PM:
> > > Why's it illegal to use programs from non-US for this kind of thing?
> > > I don't really understand why zip is in non-US in the first place,
> > > is that some kind of patent issue?
> >
> > See above.
Karsten Merker wrote:
> I have just tried the current boot-floppies cvs on mipsel (DECstation).
> Installation works for the most part, but debootstrap fails when
> configuring the packages for the base system. dpkg outputs "Processing
> was halted because there were to many errors".
I believe it
On 18 Mar 2002, Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-03-18 at 08:04, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > Same for german. The message is hardcoded in dbootstrap translation and
> > is converted to utf8 as other strings. I do not see a nifty workaround,
> > but I could replace the non-ASCII characters with thei
Package: partconf
Version: 1.19
Severity: wishlist
The "defaults" word in /etc/fstab exist so that one has something to write
as a 4th field, but it's really useless if there are more options. In such
cases it may be removed safely.
In most cases, removing this extra word makes fstab more readabl
Package: debian-installer
Version: 20061102
Severity: minor
Tested debian-testing-powerpc-netinst.iso today.
When a menu asks the user to choose among available kernels, the
following package was one of them:
kernel-image-2.6-powerpc
but this package, while it would work, is obsolete in etch, a
Package: debian-installer
Version: 20061102
[ I'm not sure this is the right package, please reassign as appropriate ].
In sarge, the user had the choice of adding a security.debian.org line
to /etc/apt/sources.list or not.
This seems to be no longer the case in etch, not even in expert mode.
I
Package: debian-installer
Version: 20061102
Severity: important
This is really a feature more than a bug, but the adverse effects are
so devastating that it would be nice to have a workaround in
debian-installer, or have it properly documented in the install manual.
It seems there is a buggy rout
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007, Robert Millan wrote:
> That's good enough for a power user. But think of Joe user who just
> got Debian preinstalled on his laptop because he wanted to save $100
> in license fees. He has no idea what wine is, but if he can just
> "click on setup.exe" and it works, he will n
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, Eddy Petrior wrote:
> Also note that will have to change the sources *after* you installed
> sarge and that would mean extra traffic (if you prefer to install a
> full desktop task, the sarge packages will be downloaded, then the
> new ones will too). Changing before will proba
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Uwe Dippel wrote:
> Be fscking intelligent and *leave* a download for everyone to pick it up,
> before you replace it.
> Leave older versions in separate directories and just change the link to it.
Be fscking intelligent and try this:
wget
http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/d
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Peter Novodvorsky wrote:
> Package: base
> Version: 2724
> Severity: normal
>
> Hello!
>
> File /etc/environment isn't owned by any package and so it cannot be
> upgraded.
/etc/environment is a text file so it can be "upgraded" by using any text
editor, like emacs, etc
1 - 100 of 208 matches
Mail list logo
