On 26/12/12 10:11 PM, linuxknow wrote:
> I replace grub legacy for grub2.
>
> in binary_debian_installer
>
> replace
>
> DI_REQ_PACKAGES="lilo grub grub-pc"
>
> for
>
> DI_REQ_PACKAGES="grub2"
>
> and in preseed.cfg
>
> grub-pc/mixed_legacy_and_grub2: true
>
> it's work
Yes, that will do
I replace grub legacy for grub2.
in binary_debian_installer
replace
DI_REQ_PACKAGES="lilo grub grub-pc"
for
DI_REQ_PACKAGES="grub2"
and in preseed.cfg
grub-pc/mixed_legacy_and_grub2: true
it's work
On 26/12/12 21:41, Ben Armstrong wrote:
On 26/12/12 08:52 AM, Grindolin wrote:
I'm usi
On 26/12/12 08:52 AM, Grindolin wrote:
> I'm using version 3.0~a51-1 and get the same error with the
> grub-legacy/grub-pd
> package conflict. This error only occurs, if i include debian-installer in
> the
> live-image. Is there any workaround or a way to avoid lb to choose
> grub-legacy
> in
I'm using version 3.0~a51-1 and get the same error with the grub-legacy/grub-pd
package conflict. This error only occurs, if i include debian-installer in the
live-image. Is there any workaround or a way to avoid lb to choose grub-legacy
instead of grub?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-l
On 26/12/12 05:47 PM, teseo wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> i would like compile an image at 64bit, actually i have only experienced
> with the i386 process and lb 2.0.12.
> To build an new 64bit image i can be reuse the lb 2.012 or do i have to
> install a lb 3.xx after updating the flag -a amd64 from -a
Hello all,
i would like compile an image at 64bit, actually i have only experienced
with the i386 process and lb 2.0.12.
To build an new 64bit image i can be reuse the lb 2.012 or do i have to
install a lb 3.xx after updating the flag -a amd64 from -a i386?
tnx
marco
--
Thanks!
grdn.mrc, De
On 12/26/2012 12:14 PM, Daniel Baumann wrote:
On 12/26/2012 05:04 PM, Daniel Reichelt wrote:
still don't see the advantage ;-) ...guess we just won't convince each
other.
well, you haven't showed any reason where/why we should use 'here-
documents' at all, you only made an argument for why you
On 12/26/2012 05:04 PM, Daniel Reichelt wrote:
> still don't see the advantage ;-) ...guess we just won't convince each
> other.
well, you haven't showed any reason where/why we should use 'here-
documents' at all, you only made an argument for why you think using the
posix-only subset doesn't mak
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> currently, we
> do not want to require a debian installation to build a debian image.
i c
> but until then, i do not think it makes much sense to 'give up' the
> advantage of having a 'posix shell only' requirement for almost no
> benefit.
still
On 12/26/2012 01:46 PM, Daniel Reichelt wrote:
> to me, 'posix subset' for 'bootstrap tools' doesn't make much sense here. [..]
> The bootstrapping environment on the other hand would be a full-blown
> Debian installation.
it is in the debian case, yes, however, live-build has always been ment
to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> we aim for live-* to work with the posix subset only, in order to
> minimize the system requirements as it should be for 'bootstrap tools'
> like live-*.
I don't want to initiate a flame war on what shell to use best for task
XY and minimizing syste
On 12/26/2012 07:27 AM, Daniel Reichelt wrote:
> live-*'s shebangs all point to /bin/sh, however Debian aims to provide
> /bin/sh by /bin/dash or /bin/bash.
we aim for live-* to work with the posix subset only, in order to
minimize the system requirements as it should be for 'bootstrap tools'
like
12 matches
Mail list logo
