Re: Last resort

https://www.debian.org/CD/netinst/#netinst-stable Cheers, and good luck! -- Boyan Penkov www.boyanpenkov.com > On Sep 19, 2017, at 20:02, Bill Pagano wrote: > > I'm a newbie at Debian Linux and trying my best but when I'm installing > Debian

Last resort

I'm a newbie at Debian Linux and trying mybest but when I'm installing Debian-9.1.0-i386-netinst, I get to a screenthat's asking me to insert the disc labeled: 'Debian GNU/Linux 9.1.0 _Stretch_-official i386 NETINST 20170722-12:43" in the '/media/cdrom/" andpress [Enter] I've looked everywhere

Bug#484129: marked as done (release.debian.org: packages in tasks should be fixed in priority and removed in last resort after discussion)

Your message dated Sat, 14 May 2011 01:21:49 +0200 with message-id <20110513232149.ga31...@radis.liafa.jussieu.fr> and subject line Re: Bug#484129: release.debian.org: packages in tasks should be fixed in priority and removed in last resort after discussion has caused the Debian Bug

Re: Bug#484129: release.debian.org: packages in tasks should be fixed in priority and removed in last resort after discussion

Hi Jérémy Bobbio wrote: > On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 10:41:16PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote: >>> However, there is no equivilant source of information for packages >>> apt-installed by d-i. >> Could there be one? Well, if you're interested in having the same >> safeguard mechanism in place for these p

Re: Bug#484129: release.debian.org: packages in tasks should be fixed in priority and removed in last resort after discussion

On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 10:41:16PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote: > > However, there is no equivilant source of information for packages > > apt-installed by d-i. > > Could there be one? Well, if you're interested in having the same > safeguard mechanism in place for these packages. I have made a fi

Bug#484129: release.debian.org: packages in tasks should be fixed in priority and removed in last resort after discussion

* Andreas Barth [Fri, 06 Jun 2008 07:30:06 +0200]: > The mechanismn: yes. But not FauxPackages itself, as I think we could > generate that list automatic. (For a short-term solution, FauxPackages > might just be ok.) I meant, yes, adding to FauxPackages an automatically-generated list, not a list

Bug#484129: release.debian.org: packages in tasks should be fixed in priority and removed in last resort after discussion

* Adeodato Simó ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080605 22:41]: > * Andreas Barth [Wed, 04 Jun 2008 07:19:07 +0200]: > > > Is there a reasonable way to > > generate pseudo-packages "taskel-$task" that depend on all the packages > > that need to be present to not break anything? > > I think britney's FauxPack

Bug#484129: release.debian.org: packages in tasks should be fixed in priority and removed in last resort after discussion

Adeodato Simó wrote: > Could there be one? Well, if you're interested in having the same > safeguard mechanism in place for these packages. It would be nice to have one, but many different parts of d-i decide what to apt-install, so extracting a list is hard. -- see shy jo signature.asc Descri

Bug#484129: release.debian.org: packages in tasks should be fixed in priority and removed in last resort after discussion

* Andreas Barth [Wed, 04 Jun 2008 07:19:07 +0200]: > Is there a reasonable way to > generate pseudo-packages "taskel-$task" that depend on all the packages > that need to be present to not break anything? I think britney's FauxPackages would just be very appropriate for this? (For those reading a

Bug#484009: Bug#484129: release.debian.org: packages in tasks should be fixed in priority and removed in last resort after discussion

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2008-06-04 18:36, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > No it's not. A user that prefers to have broken software rather than > no software (if the option "non broken" software is absent) should use > unstable. I mean it. > > You can easily use testing by de

Bug#484009: Bug#484129: release.debian.org: packages in tasks should be fixed in priority and removed in last resort after discussion

Le mercredi 04 juin 2008 à 10:30 -0700, Mike Bird a écrit : > On Wed June 4 2008 09:36:07 Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > Package: * > > Pin: release a=testing > > Pin-Priority: 990 > > > > Package: * > > Pin: release a=unstable > > Pin-Priority: 500 > > Downsides include: > >

Bug#484009: Bug#484129: release.debian.org: packages in tasks should be fixed in priority and removed in last resort after discussion

On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 02:11:51PM +, Johannes Wiedersich wrote: > Arguments like > > On 2008-06-04 15:34, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > >> (2) To a user who wishes to use a working feature of an imperfect > >> package, Debian is better with the imperfect package than > >> without: MISSING

Bug#484129: release.debian.org: packages in tasks should be fixed in priority and removed in last resort after discussion

Andreas Barth wrote: > What we should make sure then is that britney recognizes these cases, > and shows "breaking task foo" for that. Is there a reasonable way to > generate pseudo-packages "taskel-$task" that depend on all the packages > that need to be present to not break anything? You could u

Bug#484009: Bug#484129: release.debian.org: packages in tasks should be fixed in priority and removed in last resort after discussion

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2008-06-03 19:59, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > It depends of your definition of usable. I don't think it's usable on > a daily basis because: FWIW, let the users decide what they use or want to use. I took a curde estimate by counting what the reader

Bug#484009: Bug#484129: release.debian.org: packages in tasks should be fixed in priority and removed in last resort after discussion

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2008-06-04 16:11, Johannes Wiedersich wrote: > [1] search +testing +lenny on The searches were performed without the '+' to have 'testing or lenny' etc. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFIRqPFC1NzPRl9qEURAs70AJ

Bug#484129: release.debian.org: packages in tasks should be fixed in priority and removed in last resort after discussion

* Joey Hess ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080603 22:24]: > No, as I've already demonstrated, it's much more complicated than that, > and removal of lots of leaf packages that you may not consider important > at all can affect tasksel and the installer in various ways. What we should make sure then is that

Bug#484129: release.debian.org: packages in tasks should be fixed in priority and removed in last resort after discussion

On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 08:08:07PM +, Joey Hess wrote: > Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > Well in your list, there are several intersting examples. lv for > > example, has many replacements. That may not have all the features of > > lv, but that are a decent replacement. Moreover lv isn't _that_ kn

Bug#484129: release.debian.org: packages in tasks should be fixed in priority and removed in last resort after discussion

Pierre Habouzit wrote: > Well in your list, there are several intersting examples. lv for > example, has many replacements. That may not have all the features of > lv, but that are a decent replacement. Moreover lv isn't _that_ known, > and if this task doesn't install lv, noone will be hurt. OTO

Bug#484129: release.debian.org: packages in tasks should be fixed in priority and removed in last resort after discussion

On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 04:42:22PM +, Joey Hess wrote: > Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > No, tasks are not our concern directly, as it lists many packages that > > any user can live without, without being hurt or even impeded. The sole > > thing that matters is the priority, but packages with high

Bug#484129: release.debian.org: packages in tasks should be fixed in priority and removed in last resort after discussion

Pierre Habouzit wrote: > No, tasks are not our concern directly, as it lists many packages that > any user can live without, without being hurt or even impeded. The sole > thing that matters is the priority, but packages with high priorities > are hardly leaves packages as a general rule. Taskse

Bug#484129: release.debian.org: packages in tasks should be fixed in priority and removed in last resort after discussion

On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 04:16:51PM -0700, Mike Bird wrote: > "Debian Desktop Edition" for most of the release cycle. > There is no Debian Desktop Edition. Perhaps you mean the Debian Desktop subproject? > This is a useful (but unintended) side-effect. The principal > goal remains that Testing s

Bug#484129: release.debian.org: packages in tasks should be fixed in priority and removed in last resort after discussion

On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 04:27:08PM +, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Package: release.debian.org > Severity: wishlist > > Following a quick chat with Luk, and following the discussion in #484009 > about the removal of update-notifier/update-manager, I want to make the > following suggestions: > > -

Bug#484129: release.debian.org: packages in tasks should be fixed in priority and removed in last resort after discussion

On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 11:16:51PM +, Mike Bird wrote: > On Mon June 2 2008 17:38:53 Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > On 02/06/08 at 15:04 -0700, Mike Bird wrote: > > > "Don't create 20-day removal hints for packages with RC bugs > > > except when its too late for a fix to be included in the > > > for

Bug#484129: release.debian.org: packages in tasks should be fixed in priority and removed in last resort after discussion

On 02/06/08 at 15:04 -0700, Mike Bird wrote: > On Mon June 2 2008 14:39:01 Joerg Jaspert wrote: > > Feel free to work on an alternative algorithm to manage testing in a > > different way, fixing what you currently dont like. > > > > I am sure that, if you get the work done, the release team will ta

Bug#484129: release.debian.org: packages in tasks should be fixed in priority and removed in last resort after discussion

On 11404 March 1977, Mike Bird wrote: >> > Artificially lowering the RC count in Testing is not always >> > preferential to keeping Testing in a state amenable to testing. >> You say yourself that it's not artificially as RC bugs in "new" packages >> don't get that easily in testing anymore... > R

Bug#484129: release.debian.org: packages in tasks should be fixed in priority and removed in last resort after discussion

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 13:22:28 -0700, Mike Bird wrote: > There are better processes for reducing RC counts and > improving Debian without crippling "Debian Desktop Edition". > Thanks for sharing your experience about improving Debian. Oh, wait... Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to

Bug#484129: release.debian.org: packages in tasks should be fixed in priority and removed in last resort after discussion

On 02/06/08 at 11:32 -0700, Mike Bird wrote: > On Mon June 2 2008 19:05:38 Luk Claes wrote: > > Mike Bird wrote: > > > A good idea but it doesn't go far enough. Personally I don't find > > > d-i tasks to be any more important than "the packages I need", and > > > I suspect millions of Debian users

Bug#484129: release.debian.org: packages in tasks should be fixed in priority and removed in last resort after discussion

Mike Bird wrote: > On Mon June 2 2008 09:27:08 Raphael Hertzog wrote: >> I think it's important that the release team supports the work done on >> tasksel (by the d-i team) by not removing unilateraly packages which are >> listed in tasks. They have been added there in the first place for a >> reas

Bug#484129: release.debian.org: packages in tasks should be fixed in priority and removed in last resort after discussion

Package: release.debian.org Severity: wishlist Following a quick chat with Luk, and following the discussion in #484009 about the removal of update-notifier/update-manager, I want to make the following suggestions: - the release team should encourage volunteers to fix in priority RC bugs that m