On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 08:24:08PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 10:49:59AM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>On Sat, 2014-12-20 at 09:45 +0100, David Härdeman wrote:
>>> one option that doesn't seem to have been considered would be to create
>>> a separate package (let's call it
On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 10:49:59AM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
>On Sat, 2014-12-20 at 09:45 +0100, David Härdeman wrote:
>> one option that doesn't seem to have been considered would be to create
>> a separate package (let's call it UEFIx) that installs an UEFI binary to
>> EFI/boot/bootx64.efi. Tha
On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 09:45:30AM +0100, David Härdeman wrote:
>Hi,
Hi!
>one option that doesn't seem to have been considered would be to create
>a separate package (let's call it UEFIx) that installs an UEFI binary to
>EFI/boot/bootx64.efi. That binary could then do what the UEFI BIOS
>should'v
On Sat, 2014-12-20 at 09:45 +0100, David Härdeman wrote:
> one option that doesn't seem to have been considered would be to create
> a separate package (let's call it UEFIx) that installs an UEFI binary to
> EFI/boot/bootx64.efi. That binary could then do what the UEFI BIOS
> should've done (i.e. l
Hi,
one option that doesn't seem to have been considered would be to create
a separate package (let's call it UEFIx) that installs an UEFI binary to
EFI/boot/bootx64.efi. That binary could then do what the UEFI BIOS
should've done (i.e. look at the EFI vars for bootorder, bootnext, etc
and then go
On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 07:29:56PM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
>On Mon, 2014-12-08 at 01:36 +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> >The current package in sid (-17) is unblocked and I think ought to
>> >transition tomorrow (or perhaps Tuesday depending on TZ). I propose to
>> >upload -18 with this change s
On Mon, 2014-12-08 at 01:36 +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >The current package in sid (-17) is unblocked and I think ought to
> >transition tomorrow (or perhaps Tuesday depending on TZ). I propose to
> >upload -18 with this change shortly after that happens. Will you take
> >care of the unblock re
On Sun, Dec 07, 2014 at 04:38:37PM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
>Control: tag -1 +pending
>On Wed, 2014-12-03 at 15:27 +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>
>> Cool. I don't (think I) have push access to the git repo, so if you
>> could do the honours and apply, that would be lovely. :-)
>
>Done, patches
Control: tag -1 +pending
On Wed, 2014-12-03 at 15:27 +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 09:42:20AM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> >On Wed, 2014-12-03 at 01:55 +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >> On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 08:36:31AM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> >> >On Mon, 2014-12-01
On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 04:18:23PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
>A more generic fix would be to add to a list of filesystems that need
>unmounting, and trap to a new shell function that unmounts that
>list. Not too hard, I think - I'll see if I can do that and get it
>tested today.
>
>Frankly, I'
On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 09:44:08AM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
>On Wed, 2014-12-03 at 02:10 +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> >
>> >> +mountvirtfs () {
>> >> + fstype="$1"
>> >> + path="$2"
>> >> + if grep -q "[[:space:]]$fstype\$" /proc/filesystems && \
>> >> + ! grep -q "^
On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 09:42:20AM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
>On Wed, 2014-12-03 at 01:55 +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 08:36:31AM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
>> >On Mon, 2014-12-01 at 13:57 +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> >
>> >Starting with grub-install-fallback.patch:
>
On Wed, 2014-12-03 at 02:10 +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 08:51:24AM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> >On Mon, 2014-12-01 at 13:57 +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >I didn't review the text since that seems to have been done already.
> >
> >> diff --git a/rescue.d/81grub-efi-forc
On Wed, 2014-12-03 at 01:55 +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 08:36:31AM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> >On Mon, 2014-12-01 at 13:57 +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >
> >Starting with grub-install-fallback.patch:
> >
> >> >From e384e597914b6e1b1dcbf96ef6782cf9bcc2313b Mon Sep 17 0
On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 08:51:24AM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
>On Mon, 2014-12-01 at 13:57 +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
>grub-installer-rescue-UEFI-removable.patch:
>
>> diff --git a/debian/grub-installer.templates
>> b/debian/grub-installer.templates
>> index e439ad0..a6af2ec 100644
>> --- a/de
On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 08:36:31AM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
>On Mon, 2014-12-01 at 13:57 +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
>Starting with grub-install-fallback.patch:
>
>> >From e384e597914b6e1b1dcbf96ef6782cf9bcc2313b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> debian/patches/grub-install-extra-removable.patch |
On Mon, 2014-12-01 at 13:57 +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
grub-installer-rescue-UEFI-removable.patch:
> diff --git a/debian/grub-installer.templates b/debian/grub-installer.templates
> index e439ad0..a6af2ec 100644
> --- a/debian/grub-installer.templates
> +++ b/debian/grub-installer.templates
> @
On Mon, 2014-12-01 at 13:57 +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Starting with grub-install-fallback.patch:
> >From e384e597914b6e1b1dcbf96ef6782cf9bcc2313b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> debian/patches/grub-install-extra-removable.patch | 115
> ++
Could you send this to grub-de...@gnu
On Montag, 1. Dezember 2014, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Looking at the EFI/UEFI history, I hope nobody will think EFI is the
> deprecated, pre-UEFI implementation.
I wouldn't be so sure. Up until this very moment I thought EFI was something
different than UEFI...
> With that in mind, and with all
Steve McIntyre (2014-12-01):
> Hmmm, you're right. There's some existing inconsistencies already,
> which don't help. In various places we already use "EFI" (e.g. in the
> GRUB package names, EFI System Partition etc.) but in others it's
> UEFI. Maybe we'd be better with just EFI everywhere...?
L
On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 03:52:51PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>Steve McIntyre (2014-12-01):
>> Control: severity 767037 serious
>> Control: tag 767037 +patch
>>
>> [ Raising severity to serious as I've heard more and more reports of
>> the problems here recently. ]
>>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> i
Steve McIntyre (2014-12-01):
> Control: severity 767037 serious
> Control: tag 767037 +patch
>
> [ Raising severity to serious as I've heard more and more reports of
> the problems here recently. ]
>
> Hi folks,
>
> i have two patches attached here, one for grub and one for
> grub-installer.
Control: severity 767037 serious
Control: tag 767037 +patch
[ Raising severity to serious as I've heard more and more reports of
the problems here recently. ]
Hi folks,
i have two patches attached here, one for grub and one for
grub-installer. They implement the logic I described below and are
23 matches
Mail list logo
