On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 02:10:42PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> Firstly, at this point I am thoroughly convinced that something like
> this patch is necessary, and I think the tone being taken with the
> original submitter has been out of order; driving people away from
> making improvements to d-i
Firstly, at this point I am thoroughly convinced that something like
this patch is necessary, and I think the tone being taken with the
original submitter has been out of order; driving people away from
making improvements to d-i is not what we want to do, considering our
limited developer base! Ye
On Sat, Aug 09, 2008 at 10:17:34PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
>
> 1) The use-case is insufficiently clear
>
> The reason _why_ a separate partition is required at all has (at least for
> me) not been sufficiently explained. So far my impression is that all
> this is just one huge ugly hack needed
On Wednesday 06 August 2008, Robert Millan wrote:
> Attached patch makes it generate the x86 variant dynamicaly at build
> time, as requested by Jérémy on IRC.
This patch gets a huge NACK from me.
1) The use-case is insufficiently clear
The reason _why_ a separate partition is required at all ha
Attached patch makes it generate the x86 variant dynamicaly at build time,
as requested by Jérémy on IRC.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to
So what do we do about this? I wouldn't want to miss the deadline...
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 06:41:13PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 01:59:40PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> >
> > on a system where core.img was embedded, nothing will happen. OTOH if you
> > do
> > the
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 01:59:40PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
>
> on a system where core.img was embedded, nothing will happen. OTOH if you do
> the same on a system where core.img was referenced via blocklists, boot will
> start crashing as soon as the (now free) blocks that held the old core.i
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 05:03:01PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 09:08:56AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> >
> > Ok, so here are two patches. One of them using recipes-x86, and the other
> > simply modifiing recipes.
> >
> > The first one expects recipes-x86 has been creat
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 09:08:56AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
>
> Ok, so here are two patches. One of them using recipes-x86, and the other
> simply modifiing recipes.
>
> The first one expects recipes-x86 has been created previously via "svn copy".
So is either of these okay?
--
Robert Mill
Ok, so here are two patches. One of them using recipes-x86, and the other
simply modifiing recipes.
The first one expects recipes-x86 has been created previously via "svn copy".
--
Robert Millan
I know my rights; I want my phone call!
What good is a phone call… if you are unable to speak?
(
On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 02:10:30PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Saturday 19 July 2008, Robert Millan wrote:
> > This patch adds a recipe for creating a BIOS boot partition when
> > installing on GPT. Note the amd64 directory is not included with the
> > patch, as I would suggest just using a symli
On Saturday 19 July 2008, Robert Millan wrote:
> This patch adds a recipe for creating a BIOS boot partition when
> installing on GPT. Note the amd64 directory is not included with the
> patch, as I would suggest just using a symlink for that (or otherwise
> copying it).
I assume that you did an
Package: partman-auto
Version: 79
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
Hi,
This patch adds a recipe for creating a BIOS boot partition when installing
on GPT. Note the amd64 directory is not included with the patch, as I would
suggest just using a symlink for that (or otherwise copying it).
-- System
13 matches
Mail list logo
