Daniel Baumann daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net (07/02/2013):
On 02/07/2013 08:12 AM, Michael Biebl wrote:
This list is getting longer with each email. Seeing that syslinux 5 has
been in sid for less then 10 days, I'm worried what other issues might
show up.
apart from the two
Hi,
On Wed, 06 Feb 2013, Bdale Garbee wrote:
two at a time. Holding d-i's build dependencies static in unstable for
more than half a year is just nuts to me! Sure seems like d-i is
something we should build using the components of the release it will be
contained in and not unstable... but
i'm not commenting on unfair accusations, so only to the relevant part:
On 02/07/2013 09:00 AM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
again, note that any other virtualization software, be it in wheezy
directly (qemu, kvm) or otherwise (parallels, vmware) which i've
tested with, has no bugs with syslinux 5.
Daniel Baumann daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net (07/02/2013):
i'm not commenting on unfair accusations, so only to the relevant part:
On 02/07/2013 09:00 AM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
again, note that any other virtualization software, be it in wheezy
directly (qemu, kvm) or otherwise
On 02/07/2013 09:59 AM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
That doesn't
mean we should be keeping syslinux 5 in sid in the meanwhile, especially
since that's preventing us from releasing d-i wheezy rc1.
(ftr) which is where i disagree, with the mentioned patch against d-i
and debian-cd, you can release
On Thu, 07 Feb 2013, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
on the mirror and not in the package repository (the installer directories
are shared between wheezy and sid).
Cyril pointed out to me that this specific point is wrong, while
wheezy/main/installer-* and unstable/main/installer-* have the same
content
Christian PERRIER left as an exercise for the reader:
I'd like to followup on your suggestion as it seems well thought and
prepared and not just one idea thrown in the wild as I was initially
thinking (sorry for this).
Thanks for your kind words, christian! i'm still wondering what people
Daniel Baumann daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net (07/02/2013):
(ftr) which is where i disagree, with the mentioned patch against
d-i and debian-cd, you can release d-i wheezy rc1, even with
syslinux 5.x in sid.
even more so: since steve uses a local copy of syslinux anyway
(judging
On 02/07/2013 09:31, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Technically d-i point release updates are built in
stable-proposed-updates and build dependencies are satisfied in stable
(+ s-p-u maybe). Similarly it should be possible to build d-i for wheezy
in testing-proposed-updates right now (and have
On 02/07/2013 10:27 AM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
That means at least broken mini.iso, which is totally unacceptable.
broken without the patch i send for debian-installer, yes.
therefore, right now, even without any patches, the only actually
affected things are the images within the
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 07:52:13AM +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote:
consider such a misfeature to be in critical need of a fix (iirc
steve puts a local copy of the 'to be used' syslinux version to be
used by debian-cd for release images manually on the local fs; not
sure about the same that ends up
Daniel Baumann daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net (07/02/2013):
On 02/07/2013 10:27 AM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
That means at least broken mini.iso, which is totally unacceptable.
broken without the patch i send for debian-installer, yes.
If that can't be used with virtualbox (and we
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 10:15:42AM +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote:
On 02/07/2013 09:59 AM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
That doesn't
mean we should be keeping syslinux 5 in sid in the meanwhile, especially
since that's preventing us from releasing d-i wheezy rc1.
(ftr) which is where i disagree, with the
On 02/07/2013 10:53 AM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
If that can't be used with virtualbox (and we already established
that, thanks to Michael's testing), that means it's broken with your
patch too.
as already elaborated, the bug in vbox needs to be fixed anyway,
regardless what version of syslinux
Daniel Baumann, le Thu 07 Feb 2013 11:08:55 +0100, a écrit :
i've already made the case why i want newer syslinux in sid,
I must have missed that, and I can't find it on either bug #699382,
699742 or 699808.
Samuel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a
On 02/07/2013 11:17 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
I must have missed that, and I can't find it on either bug #699382,
699742 or 699808.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=699808#10
--
Address:Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH-3012 Bern
Email:
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 09:45:55PM +0100, Holger Wansing wrote:
So, how hard would it be to convert this thing into a po-based
translation?
I am in private contact with Innocent De Marchi, who has mailed me
because of my mail to debian-l10n-catalan.
He has had similar ideas.
But
Bdale Garbee wrote:
Sure seems like d-i is something we should build using the components
of the release it will be contained in and not unstable... but I
haven't tried to think hard about what that might imply that's
problematic. And I certainly don't think this is something we should
even
Steve McIntyre wrote:
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 07:52:13AM +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote:
consider such a misfeature to be in critical need of a fix (iirc
steve puts a local copy of the 'to be used' syslinux version to be
used by debian-cd for release images manually on the local fs; not
sure
Bdale Garbee wrote:
patch d-i to build successfully against the syslinux in sid
syslinux is GPL'd, so this would result in shipping d-i images in wheezy
which contain a GPL'd binary for which there is no source in wheezy.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Joey Hess jo...@debian.org (07/02/2013):
This can be done easily, just upload d-i to t-p-u. d-i uploads are
already built with udebs from testing, for similar reasons.
There seems to be an unholy fear of using t-p-u for anything these days,
which I don't really understand. Even when not
On 02/07/2013 02:14 PM, Joey Hess wrote:
Howver, that is not the only image provided by Debian that uses
syslinux. The d-i mini.iso is another one, which uses the syslinux
provided by d-i's Build-Depedency, ie the one from unstable.
that has already been discussed in earlier messages.
--
Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Joey Hess jo...@debian.org (07/02/2013):
This can be done easily, just upload d-i to t-p-u. d-i uploads are
already built with udebs from testing, for similar reasons.
There seems to be an unholy fear of using t-p-u for anything these days,
which I don't really
On 07.02.2013 14:46, Joey Hess wrote:
Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Joey Hess jo...@debian.org (07/02/2013):
This can be done easily, just upload d-i to t-p-u. d-i uploads are
already built with udebs from testing, for similar reasons.
There seems to be an unholy fear of using t-p-u for anything
Package: debian-installer
Version: 20121114
Severity: normal
Hi,
in [1] it was mentioned that d-i embeds syslinux on some architectures, but the
current version does not include syslinux in its Build-Using field.
It might be helpful to include it there to ensure we always keep the source for
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 01:55:11AM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
On a personal note, I'm unsure how we came up with a situation where a
single maintainer can *actively* stall a release… Not caring about the
release process put into place years ago is a thing. Stopping people
from fixing
Hi all,
Apologies for taking as long as I have to get around to sending this mail.
I would like to request an unblock of the udev udeb at version 175-7.1.
unblock-udeb udev/175-7.1
This package is a prerequisite for having a useful version of upstart in
wheezy (bug #686387), and the change
Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
in [1] it was mentioned that d-i embeds syslinux on some architectures, but
the
current version does not include syslinux in its Build-Using field.
It might be helpful to include it there to ensure we always keep the source
for
the embedded version around.
d-i
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 10:33:00AM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
As Adam already pointed out we would still need another d-i upload to
unstable to make sure unstable has a higher-or-equal version compared to
testing.
Sometimes I wonder why it cannot simply propagate to the upper suite.
We do
Quoting nick black (nick.bl...@sprezzatech.com):
As said, you can find a growlight udeb in the SprezzOS repositories, where it
is actively used in our d-i-derived installer:
It's quite likely that the first step is then to have growlight in
main Debian, isn't it?
signature.asc
Christian PERRIER left as an exercise for the reader:
Quoting nick black (nick.bl...@sprezzatech.com):
As said, you can find a growlight udeb in the SprezzOS repositories, where
it
is actively used in our d-i-derived installer:
It's quite likely that the first step is then to have
Karl Goetz left as an exercise for the reader:
How will this go for ports, non x86 and non linux?
non-x86: there's no x86-specific code in growlight. if all the libraries
are available, everything should be fine. will need to support setting up
bootloaders on those architectures if they
32 matches
Mail list logo
