On Dec 17, 2009, at 5:39 PM, Frans Pop wrote:
On Thursday 17 December 2009, Rick Thomas wrote:
It may not be "grave" for the installer (indeed, you've already
established at great length that it's not an installer problem at
all)
but that doesn't make it any the less grave for whatever pack
Frans Pop wrote:
> On Friday 18 December 2009, Philipp Kern wrote:
>> While I did not take care about the fallout due to time constraints on
>> my side, I did take a look at the meta-gnome2 migration back then. We
>> did not place any approval hint but it seems that the multiple arch:all
>> confus
On Friday 18 December 2009, Philipp Kern wrote:
> While I did not take care about the fallout due to time constraints on
> my side, I did take a look at the meta-gnome2 migration back then. We
> did not place any approval hint but it seems that the multiple arch:all
> confused britney sufficiently
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 02:49:47PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > It's almost certain that both the relevant package maintainer and the
> > release team are already aware of this and that it has been a conscious
> > choice to accept the breakage.
> Given that the package version clearly indicat
On Thursday 17 December 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Thursday 17 December 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Given that the package version clearly indicates it reached testing by
> > way of testing-proposed-updates, I think it's unwise to assume this.
> > Cc:ing debian-release for input on the uninst
On Thursday 17 December 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Given that the package version clearly indicates it reached testing by
> way of testing-proposed-updates, I think it's unwise to assume this.
> Cc:ing debian-release for input on the uninstallability of gnome in
> testing.
You're right, I miss
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:39:39PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> This looks like a fairly likely reason:
> http://packages.debian.org/squeeze/gnome-core
> For some reason the package was forced to testing even though it was not
> available on all architectures.
> If that is the reason, then it means
On Thursday 17 December 2009, Rick Thomas wrote:
> It may not be "grave" for the installer (indeed, you've already
> established at great length that it's not an installer problem at all)
> but that doesn't make it any the less grave for whatever package it
> does belong to. You've given me a few
On Dec 17, 2009, at 12:22 PM, Frans Pop wrote:
(And please do not over-inflate the severity of bug reports: a desktop
environment not being installable does not make the installation
system
unusable.)
It may not be "grave" for the installer (indeed, you've already
established at great l
On Thursday 17 December 2009, Rick Thomas wrote:
> > What problems exist in Squeeze?
>
> Here's the Squeeze problem (from my original posting in this thread):
> >>> 3) When I install a "graphical desktop environment" with Squeeze
> >>> using the above d-i images, I get a system that is missing almo
On Dec 17, 2009, at 10:48 AM, Frans Pop wrote:
On Thursday 17 December 2009, Rick Thomas wrote:
I have listed several problems that exist in Sid and Squeeze, some of
which prevent successful installation (even though there is nothing
wrong with the installer).
The problems in Sid are not int
On Thursday 17 December 2009, Rick Thomas wrote:
> I have listed several problems that exist in Sid and Squeeze, some of
> which prevent successful installation (even though there is nothing
> wrong with the installer).
The problems in Sid are not interesting as they will fix themselves.
What
On Dec 16, 2009, at 10:38 PM, Frans Pop wrote:
Again, there is *nothing* wrong with the installer here. We welcome
reports
of issues with installations of testing, but issues with sid are
seldom
caused by problems in the installer.
If you say so, I have to agree that there is *nothing* wr
On Thursday 17 December 2009, Rogério Brito wrote:
> I will see with Otávio what can be done from the d-i side of it (I'm not
> really up to d-i things, since I've been working with the main
> distribution instead of with installers). But I can try to look at it.
I already replied to the original
Hi there (reading from -powerpc).
On Dec 16 2009, Rick Thomas wrote:
> Debian on PowerPC seems to be in trouble...
I just purchased me a "new" (used, in fact) iBook G4 and this is the
first altivec-enabled box that I have. It is also a bit faster than my
other powerpc machines.
(BTW, if you can
Debian on PowerPC seems to be in trouble...
1) The daily d-i CDImage for PowerPC hasn't been updated since Dec 12th.
http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/daily-builds/daily/arch-latest/powerpc/iso-cd/
2) Even if it were updated, it still would not be possible to install
Debian Sid on Po
16 matches
Mail list logo
