Bug#768218: netcfg segfaults when passed four or more nameservers
Kjell Braden aff...@pentabarf.de (2014-11-06): On 06.11.2014 03:22, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Yeah, that looks like a good idea, thanks. Did you actually test it? No. What would be the simplest way to test this? Rebuild and patch the netcfg binary into the initrd? Build a patched netcfg, put the resulting udebs under debian-installer's build/localudebs directory, and building your favourite image. I can do that and share the relevant files if you tell me which architecture and which installation type you need. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#768218: netcfg segfaults when passed four or more nameservers
On 06.11.2014 03:22, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Yeah, that looks like a good idea, thanks. Did you actually test it? No. What would be the simplest way to test this? Rebuild and patch the netcfg binary into the initrd? BTW: It looks like ntpservers have a max value as well but array boundary checks seem present (dhcp.c's netcfg_dhcp). I did a quick check for other offending loops but didn't find any. I didn't search thoroughly though. Cheers signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#767999: problem with debootstrap in wheezy
Note: dpkg 1.17.21 has migrated to testing, and, as a result, the current debootstrap in wheezy is now unable to create chroots for both jessie and sid (previously it was only sid and jessie still worked). As of today, in jessie we still have base-files 7.6. So, as I suspected, the recent changes in dpkg are the most likely reason why this problem didn't bite us before, not the changes I did in base-files 7.7. I hope this might definitely clarify some past misunderstandings about this problem. Thanks a lot. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.2.11.1411061227090.10...@cantor.unex.es
Bug#768218: netcfg segfaults when passed four or more nameservers
On 06.11.2014 12:50, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Kjell Braden aff...@pentabarf.de (2014-11-06): I've been using the xen netboot images for amd64. I've included a patched netcfg in xen netboot images for amd64, built against jessie and against sid (the kernel ABI changed recently), they are available at: https://people.debian.org/~kibi/di-netcfg/xen-netboot-amd64-jessie/ https://people.debian.org/~kibi/di-netcfg/xen-netboot-amd64-sid/ Please keep the bug in copy when replying with your test results? Thanks already! Mraw, KiBi. Tested on jessie xen netboot amd64: netcfg indeed crashes on the current archive image, while it succeeds on your patched image. Cheers signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#768218: netcfg segfaults when passed four or more nameservers
Kjell Braden aff...@pentabarf.de (2014-11-06): On 06.11.2014 12:50, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Kjell Braden aff...@pentabarf.de (2014-11-06): I've been using the xen netboot images for amd64. I've included a patched netcfg in xen netboot images for amd64, built against jessie and against sid (the kernel ABI changed recently), they are available at: https://people.debian.org/~kibi/di-netcfg/xen-netboot-amd64-jessie/ https://people.debian.org/~kibi/di-netcfg/xen-netboot-amd64-sid/ Please keep the bug in copy when replying with your test results? Thanks already! Mraw, KiBi. Tested on jessie xen netboot amd64: netcfg indeed crashes on the current archive image, while it succeeds on your patched image. Many thanks, netcfg 1.123 is on its way to the archive. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Processing of netcfg_1.123_source.changes
netcfg_1.123_source.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: netcfg_1.123.dsc netcfg_1.123.tar.xz Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon (running on host franck.debian.org) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/e1xmma1-au...@franck.debian.org
netcfg_1.123_source.changes ACCEPTED into unstable
Accepted: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.8 Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 13:49:31 +0100 Source: netcfg Binary: netcfg netcfg-static Architecture: source Version: 1.123 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Debian Install System Team debian-boot@lists.debian.org Changed-By: Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org Description: netcfg - Configure the network (udeb) netcfg-static - Configure a static network (udeb) Closes: 768218 Changes: netcfg (1.123) unstable; urgency=medium . * Fix missing bounds check on nameserver array iteration, leading to a crash when 4 (or more) nameservers are available (Closes: #768218). Thanks, Kjell Braden, for the bug report, patch, and tests! Checksums-Sha1: 56492bf40d47db669c32edb1eff2601daff3e14c 1873 netcfg_1.123.dsc b69a88f63f00236ccba0f1d48e9eaa303ad1079a 392496 netcfg_1.123.tar.xz Checksums-Sha256: 2791e8566e3b9bedea39e0424e2a81dd4bddd28370bd3af2077ec90163f2f19d 1873 netcfg_1.123.dsc ca5336a81a0fd7e92efe5031e0b9ef36b676619347a1a800fcdfcbea40494d2c 392496 netcfg_1.123.tar.xz Files: 603d45708fa32ca033f5d95a48bb5f57 1873 debian-installer optional netcfg_1.123.dsc 30b34761bc7b046be0169d496c2b224c 392496 debian-installer optional netcfg_1.123.tar.xz -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUW27NAAoJEP+RSvDCs1UgwSgQAJOdA95+hZKmcAZmwffz+n8a zeMkcAeRzVfHjutghpTeq+f3HdO/RQSzVq1LNsA66YrrwkCbmhvON03UtI91zW1z ZxqrW47HKb32rfoXSNtEzSPP7RpOAPTBLsXevEuMyiNA2KmDuDHnoxDFiYmyOwUF rXnVNa5kJPm/3V+NMgXnIOpqpNXqr0a9dQUhoGaOocOMKetF7CBo6v3lcbmjnjmy 5a43cLCXS6cdjUEdDRxNAUEBpwL31XlijvKWVYTsu75ayVYyP1L/KJTsJ5A7EKeY 0uoOK+5VVc5Td9EBJsQbrL/4CU8dzSLWhQjIO1sbVmXn3e7FRIReDByl0cd/Uuof OVG+atrfhyTbUPEB+ESyWifmrGGnLHaq7zPyN5adFxlWherQXRRoVuxDW7gyTb+h jXkUui8gob59AHIzBz/fDHDbNftEe9+7Mo26X6rcYr5iPmwpyGJ6Be6rz9OeH4Hg H8qTrRco9j2/QYwfDhNRbrSVEYOIiy68YgQyOxIMFNM4jkj1k26QW3wTzsa7Nqmt vRrsDVhL6M5LEbUPa8icZ7r0OI6afvR4aZ6p/q2sjhyxoabktkXT29dRzPTDF93M cPZ926M9hnUfQlhLIksVdJihzgy9qRScjNDVKy0UsfEdyvAAXNkG6ZhVzv2tmBCe GPikHQzFyhRd4wbVMpMF =9IZa -END PGP SIGNATURE- Thank you for your contribution to Debian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/e1xmmjw-0001ve...@franck.debian.org
Bug#768218: marked as done (netcfg segfaults when passed four or more nameservers)
Your message dated Thu, 06 Nov 2014 13:04:14 +
with message-id e1xmmjw-0001vo...@franck.debian.org
and subject line Bug#768218: fixed in netcfg 1.123
has caused the Debian Bug report #768218,
regarding netcfg segfaults when passed four or more nameservers
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
768218: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=768218
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
---BeginMessage---
Package: netcfg
Version: 1.108+deb7u2
Tags: patch
When passed more than three nameservers, netcfg can segfaults in
nm_write_static_ipvX due to a missing array bounds check. The attached
patch (against current git master) should fix the issue.
Cheers
From f729be186bf9b99c3ee7b0f05543f18d79737cfc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Kjell Braden aff...@pentabarf.de
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 02:05:28 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] fix missing bounds check on nameserver array iteration
---
nm-conf.c |3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/nm-conf.c b/nm-conf.c
index 09b2fb4..db42c2c 100644
--- a/nm-conf.c
+++ b/nm-conf.c
@@ -88,7 +88,8 @@ void nm_write_static_ipvX(FILE *config_file, nm_ipvX ipvx)
/* Get DNS in printable format. */
memset(buffer, 0, NM_MAX_LEN_BUF);
-for (i = 0; !empty_str(ipvx.nameservers[i]); i++) {
+for (i = 0; (i NETCFG_NAMESERVERS_MAX)
+ (!empty_str(ipvx.nameservers[i])); i++) {
strcat(buffer, ipvx.nameservers[i]);
strcat(buffer, ;);
}
--
1.7.10.4---End Message---
---BeginMessage---
Source: netcfg
Source-Version: 1.123
We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
netcfg, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive.
A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.
Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed. If you
have further comments please address them to 768...@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.
Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org (supplier of updated netcfg package)
(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing ftpmas...@ftp-master.debian.org)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 13:49:31 +0100
Source: netcfg
Binary: netcfg netcfg-static
Architecture: source
Version: 1.123
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Debian Install System Team debian-boot@lists.debian.org
Changed-By: Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org
Description:
netcfg - Configure the network (udeb)
netcfg-static - Configure a static network (udeb)
Closes: 768218
Changes:
netcfg (1.123) unstable; urgency=medium
.
* Fix missing bounds check on nameserver array iteration, leading to a
crash when 4 (or more) nameservers are available (Closes: #768218).
Thanks, Kjell Braden, for the bug report, patch, and tests!
Checksums-Sha1:
56492bf40d47db669c32edb1eff2601daff3e14c 1873 netcfg_1.123.dsc
b69a88f63f00236ccba0f1d48e9eaa303ad1079a 392496 netcfg_1.123.tar.xz
Checksums-Sha256:
2791e8566e3b9bedea39e0424e2a81dd4bddd28370bd3af2077ec90163f2f19d 1873
netcfg_1.123.dsc
ca5336a81a0fd7e92efe5031e0b9ef36b676619347a1a800fcdfcbea40494d2c 392496
netcfg_1.123.tar.xz
Files:
603d45708fa32ca033f5d95a48bb5f57 1873 debian-installer optional
netcfg_1.123.dsc
30b34761bc7b046be0169d496c2b224c 392496 debian-installer optional
netcfg_1.123.tar.xz
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1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=9IZa
-END PGP SIGNATUREEnd Message---
Bug#767999: debootstrap/base-passwd: #767999 and #766459 should really be fixed in base-passwd
[ BCC'ing Santiago, Holger, Adam, Cyril ]
Hi all,
I'm refraining from quoting the preceding mails as most of you will have those
in their inbox, and I'd rather summarise the situation right here:
At least Santiago's and my opinion diverge on whether base-passwd is presently
in line with policy on 3.8 Essential packages. Therefore the route from here
appears to hinge on interpreting policy in one of two ways: my point is that
base-passwd, at present, is not providing its functionality after just being
unpacked - it does require postinst having been run. Santiago claims, if I
interpret this correctly, that every package has to be configured at least once
before being useful at all (irrespective of whether it is essential or not).
The steps from here are such:
1. Determine whether base-passwd is in line with policy on providing its
functionality as an essential package.
A) If it is, then debootstrap is buggy.
B) If base-passwd violates policy, then base-passwd is buggy.
2. If debootstrap is buggy, then the most effective way of updating as many
debootstrap installations as possible must be found.
3. If base-passwd violates policy, policy could be amended to acknowledge
base-passwd's special case. Then again we are in situation 2.
4. If base-passwd violates policy and policy would not be amended, then
base-passwd will need to be changed. Again, as you aren't base-passwd's
maintainer, you are not to be tasked with this.
My point of view is that base-passwd should be changed, and thanks to
suggestions from Tollef last night the attached patch should actually achieve
this. The idea simply is to sort out creating /etc/passwd and /etc/group in
preinst already, so that these files will be present once the package reaches
the state unpacked.
Using a version of base-passwd modified in this way makes wheezy's debootstrap
work for me.
I am thus CC'ing Colin as base-passwd's maintainer to gather his input - I'm not
really up for any bug-reassigning game, so I'd rather not do this myself without
consent by any of the involved package maintainers (I'm just a debootstrap
user...).
Best,
Michael
diff -Nru base-passwd-3.5.36/debian/other base-passwd-3.5.36/debian/other
--- base-passwd-3.5.36/debian/other 1970-01-01 01:00:00.0 +0100
+++ base-passwd-3.5.36/debian/other 2014-11-06 11:18:54.0 +
@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+
+override_dh_clean:
+ dh_auto_clean
+ $(RM) debian/preinst
+
+override_dh_auto_configure:
+ cp debian/preinst.in debian/preinst
+ sed -e '/@PASSWD@/ {' -e 'r passwd.master' -e 'd' -e '}' -i
debian/preinst
+ sed -e '/@GROUP@/ {' -e 'r group.master' -e 'd' -e '}' -i debian/preinst
+
diff -Nru base-passwd-3.5.36/debian/preinst.in
base-passwd-3.5.36/debian/preinst.in
--- base-passwd-3.5.36/debian/preinst.in1970-01-01 01:00:00.0
+0100
+++ base-passwd-3.5.36/debian/preinst.in2014-11-06 10:47:29.0
+
@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+#! /bin/sh
+
+set -e
+
+if [ ! $1 = install ] ; then
+exit 0
+fi
+
+if [ ! -e /etc/passwd ] ; then
+ cat /etc/passwd EOF
+@PASSWD@
+EOF
+fi
+
+if [ ! -e /etc/group ] ; then
+ cat /etc/group EOF
+@GROUP@
+EOF
+fi
+
+#DEBHELPER#
+
+exit 0
diff -Nru base-passwd-3.5.36/debian/rules base-passwd-3.5.36/debian/rules
--- base-passwd-3.5.36/debian/rules 2014-08-31 18:04:51.0 +0100
+++ base-passwd-3.5.36/debian/rules 2014-11-06 11:25:54.0 +
@@ -5,6 +5,16 @@
export DEB_BUILD_MAINT_OPTIONS := hardening=+all
export DEB_CFLAGS_MAINT_APPEND := -Wall
+override_dh_auto_clean:
+ dh_auto_clean
+ $(RM) debian/preinst
+
+override_dh_auto_install:
+ cp debian/preinst.in debian/preinst
+ sed -e '/@PASSWD@/ {' -e 'r passwd.master' -e 'd' -e '}' -i
debian/preinst
+ sed -e '/@GROUP@/ {' -e 'r group.master' -e 'd' -e '}' -i debian/preinst
+ dh_auto_install
+
override_dh_installdebconf:
touch debian/base-passwd.substvars
mv debian/base-passwd.substvars debian/base-passwd.substvars.real
pgpx38I6SSozq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Bug#739989: marked as done (debian-installer-utils: log-output change breaks speech synthesis)
Your message dated Thu, 6 Nov 2014 15:04:31 +0100 with message-id 20141106140431.gd17...@mraw.org and subject line Re: Bug#739989: debian-installer-utils: log-output change breaks speech synthesis has caused the Debian Bug report #739989, regarding debian-installer-utils: log-output change breaks speech synthesis to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 739989: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=739989 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ---BeginMessage--- Source: debian-installer-utils Version: 1.103 Severity: serious Tags: d-i Justification: breaks speech synthesis Hi Colin, the change below breaks speech synthesis, as reported here: https://lists.debian.org/debian-accessibility/2014/02/msg00093.html and suspected here: https://lists.debian.org/debian-accessibility/2014/02/msg00102.html I've checked that building d-i against testing udebs lets me reproduced this issue, and that adding d-i-utils' binaries to localudebs after having reverted this change fixes speech synthesis. commit 9c6685364a56697ea9c590e1bc93a73ade88b679 Author: Colin Watson cjwat...@debian.org Date: Fri Feb 7 17:07:46 2014 + log-output: Always install a no-op SIGCHLD handler This copes with the case where the subsidiary process starts a daemon which does not fully disconnect its standard file descriptors (LP: #1021293). See also the changelog for 1.46. (http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=d-i/debian-installer-utils.git;a=commit;h=9c6685364a56697ea9c590e1bc93a73ade88b679) Can you please have a look? Worst case I could revert and upload with urgency=high (the package is in testing now), but having a proper fix would be nice if it's only a matter of days. Mraw, KiBi. ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org (2014-02-24): Source: debian-installer-utils Version: 1.103 Severity: serious Tags: d-i Justification: breaks speech synthesis Hi Colin, the change below breaks speech synthesis, as reported here: https://lists.debian.org/debian-accessibility/2014/02/msg00093.html and suspected here: https://lists.debian.org/debian-accessibility/2014/02/msg00102.html I've checked that building d-i against testing udebs lets me reproduced this issue, and that adding d-i-utils' binaries to localudebs after having reverted this change fixes speech synthesis. commit 9c6685364a56697ea9c590e1bc93a73ade88b679 Author: Colin Watson cjwat...@debian.org Date: Fri Feb 7 17:07:46 2014 + log-output: Always install a no-op SIGCHLD handler This copes with the case where the subsidiary process starts a daemon which does not fully disconnect its standard file descriptors (LP: #1021293). See also the changelog for 1.46. (http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=d-i/debian-installer-utils.git;a=commit;h=9c6685364a56697ea9c590e1bc93a73ade88b679) Can you please have a look? Worst case I could revert and upload with urgency=high (the package is in testing now), but having a proper fix would be nice if it's only a matter of days. Since this change was reverted, let's close this bug report for now. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ---End Message---
Bug#764675: need change in debian-cd_info.tar.gz too
Hi, after hanging out with nice people from #debian-boot and #debian-cd I have now been pointed in this direction. when the debian-ISOs are build using debian-cd, somewhere in the process debian-cd_info.tar.gz are downloaded. this file contains isolinux config files, and these files have a lot of -- needing to be changed to --- according to the nice folks in #debian-cd this requires a change in debian-installer and thus this follow-up to the bug. Please point me in the right direction, if this is wrong. Best regards, -- Lasse Aagren DTU Library --- Technical University of Denmark Technical Information Center of Denmark Anker Engelunds Vej 1 Building 101D 2800 Kgs. Lyngby Direct +45 45257229 Mobile +45 40516542 l...@dtic.dtu.dk http://www.dtic.dtu.dk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/545b855a.1020...@dtic.dtu.dk
Bug#768329: grub-common: Please enable splash for jessie
* Colin Watson cjwat...@debian.org [141106 16:06]: Control: reassign 768329 grub-installer On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 03:53:58PM +0100, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: Please add the splash option to the Linux default command line, as just installing plymouth otherwise has no effect, and plymouth is the recommended solution for fixing bootup multiplexing issues (f.e. password prompting for encrypted disks). This is supposed to be handled by grub-installer, which is part of d-i. I do want to note that the grub packaging appears to have default command line handling for different distributions, and adding splash there would have the benefit(?) of everybody getting it, regardless how the system was installed (d-i, (grml-)debootstrap, etc.) -- ,''`. Christian Hofstaedtler z...@debian.org : :' : Debian Developer `. `' 7D1A CFFA D9E0 806C 9C4C D392 5C13 D6DB 9305 2E03 `- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re : who are u ? debian-boot@lists.debian.org
you have facebook
Processed: Re: Bug#768329: grub-common: Please enable splash for jessie
Processing control commands: reassign 768329 grub-installer Bug #768329 [grub-common] grub-common: Please enable splash for jessie Bug reassigned from package 'grub-common' to 'grub-installer'. No longer marked as found in versions grub2/2.02~beta2-15. Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #768329 to the same values previously set -- 768329: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=768329 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/handler.s.b768329.14152863902311.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#768329: grub-common: Please enable splash for jessie
Control: reassign -1 grub-common On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 04:11:11PM +0100, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: * Colin Watson cjwat...@debian.org [141106 16:06]: On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 03:53:58PM +0100, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: Please add the splash option to the Linux default command line, as just installing plymouth otherwise has no effect, and plymouth is the recommended solution for fixing bootup multiplexing issues (f.e. password prompting for encrypted disks). This is supposed to be handled by grub-installer, which is part of d-i. I do want to note that the grub packaging appears to have default command line handling for different distributions, and adding splash there would have the benefit(?) of everybody getting it, regardless how the system was installed (d-i, (grml-)debootstrap, etc.) Hm, right, I guess that is grub2's responsibility. Sorry for my misunderstanding. In principle this makes sense; I'm just a bit nervous about this at this point, and changing this will cause a ucf prompt for large numbers of people, so I want to get it right first time. CCing debian-devel; does anyone know of reasons why adding splash to the default command line would be a bad thing? -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@debian.org] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141106153206.gq5...@riva.ucam.org
Bug#757711: netcfg: promptly kills dhclient, deconfigures interface
Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org (2014-09-06): Philipp Kern pk...@debian.org (2014-09-05): On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 09:55:24AM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org (2014-08-31): On 31/08/14 07:00, Philipp Kern wrote: Is perhaps the same true for stop_rdnssd() on the next line? So Steven committed a patch in to git, getting rid of the dhcp part; Philipp, should I upload that and we'll figure out the rdnssd part another time? ACK. I wanted to look at it today, but meh. rdnssd isn't as critical as it won't take your interface down if you kill it. You just won't get updated DNS information. Alright, thanks. Quickly checked on Linux that going back to the network step still kills the dhcp client and get it started again. Tagged and uploaded. Mraw, KiBi. Should that get fixed in wheezy as well? I've spotted this is still marked as affecting this release but if that's no practical issue (we would have been aware of this for quite some time already I guess), it might be OK to wheezy-ignore it or notfound it in wheezy's version. Thoughts? Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Processed: Re: Bug#768329: grub-common: Please enable splash for jessie
Processing control commands: reassign -1 grub-common Bug #768329 [grub-installer] grub-common: Please enable splash for jessie Bug reassigned from package 'grub-installer' to 'grub-common'. Ignoring request to alter found versions of bug #768329 to the same values previously set Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #768329 to the same values previously set -- 768329: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=768329 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/handler.s.b768329.141528793213141.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Processed: user release.debian....@packages.debian.org, tagging 701814, tagging 709198, tagging 694986 ...
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: # RT sprint decision (-ignore, is-blocker) # moreinfo/unreproduciable changes are BTS cleaning user release.debian@packages.debian.org Setting user to release.debian@packages.debian.org (was ni...@thykier.net). tags 701814 + jessie-ignore Bug #701814 [os-prober] os-prober: damages XFS exported via iSCSI but not mounted locally; potential data loss Added tag(s) jessie-ignore. tags 709198 + jessie-ignore Bug #709198 [debconf] debconf: should not use python in maintainer scripts Added tag(s) jessie-ignore. tags 694986 + jessie-ignore Bug #694986 [initscripts] flash-kernel: postinst modifies /etc/default/rcS Added tag(s) jessie-ignore. tags 745835 + jessie-ignore Bug #745835 [lynx-cur] lynx-cur: certificate revocation is not checked Added tag(s) jessie-ignore. tags 752610 + jessie-ignore Bug #752610 [lynx-cur] lynx: Can connect to CVE-2014-0092 test site Added tag(s) jessie-ignore. severity 715204 important Bug #715204 [automake] automake: Doesn't use TESTS_ENVIRONMENT with parallel test Severity set to 'important' from 'serious' severity 747054 important Bug #747054 [eclipse] FTBFS: package javax.servlet.http does not exist Severity set to 'important' from 'serious' tags 747054 - unreproducible Bug #747054 [eclipse] FTBFS: package javax.servlet.http does not exist Removed tag(s) unreproducible. severity 649038 important Bug #649038 [elfutils] elfutils FTBFS on kfreebsd Severity set to 'important' from 'serious' usertags 714045 jessie-is-blocker There were no usertags set. Usertags are now: jessie-is-blocker. tags 747141 + jessie-ignore Bug #747141 [debhelper] debhelper: dh_installdocs --link-doc forces source-version dependencies Added tag(s) jessie-ignore. severity 765017 normal Bug #765017 [spice-client-glib-usb-acl-helper] SECURITY - normal users are allowed full access to USB devices per default Severity set to 'normal' from 'critical' tags 765380 + jessie-ignore Bug #765380 [src:gcc-4.8] don't ship gcc-4.8 with jessie Added tag(s) jessie-ignore. retitle 765380 gcc-4.8: do not ship with Jessie+1 Bug #765380 [src:gcc-4.8] don't ship gcc-4.8 with jessie Changed Bug title to 'gcc-4.8: do not ship with Jessie+1' from 'don't ship gcc-4.8 with jessie' tags 756179 + moreinfo Bug #756179 [efibootmgr] grub-efi-amd64: Boot failure after upgrade to 2.02~beta2-11 Added tag(s) moreinfo. severity 756179 important Bug #756179 [efibootmgr] grub-efi-amd64: Boot failure after upgrade to 2.02~beta2-11 Severity set to 'important' from 'critical' severity 764692 important Bug #764692 [libc0.1-dev] glibc: removed __FAVOR_BSD from features.h Severity set to 'important' from 'serious' tags 741464 - moreinfo unreproducible Bug #741464 [grub-pc-bin] grub-pc-bin: freezes after terminal_input at_keyboard Removed tag(s) unreproducible and moreinfo. severity 741464 grave Bug #741464 [grub-pc-bin] grub-pc-bin: freezes after terminal_input at_keyboard Severity set to 'grave' from 'critical' tags 765567 + jessie-ignore Bug #765567 [docbook-xsl] Please use non-recursive version Added tag(s) jessie-ignore. severity 764590 important Bug #764590 [procps] procps: fails to build from source in sid on amd64 Severity set to 'important' from 'critical' severity 740509 important Bug #740509 [glibc] ifconfig: ioctl(SIOCGIFINFO_IN6): No such device or address Bug #765882 [glibc] freebsd-net-tools: ifconfig ioctl siocaifaddr Severity set to 'important' from 'critical' Severity set to 'important' from 'critical' severity 766370 important Bug #766370 [libc6] login[5797]: segfault at ip sp error 14 in librt-2.19.so Severity set to 'important' from 'critical' tags 766370 + unreproducible Bug #766370 [libc6] login[5797]: segfault at ip sp error 14 in librt-2.19.so Added tag(s) unreproducible. tags 766397 + jessie-ignore Bug #766397 [emacs24] emacs/gnus: Uses s_client to for SSL. Added tag(s) jessie-ignore. thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 649038: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=649038 694986: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=694986 701814: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=701814 709198: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=709198 714045: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=714045 715204: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=715204 740509: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=740509 741464: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=741464 745835: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=745835 747054: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=747054 747141: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=747141 752610: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=752610 756179: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=756179 764590: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=764590 764692: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=764692 765017:
Bug#753442: debootstrap: host's /run/shm gets unmounted after debootstrap run
Daniel Reichelt deb...@nachtgeist.net (2014-07-02): Package: debootstrap Version: 1.0.48+deb7u1 Severity: critical Justification: breaks unrelated software Hi, after running debootstrap the host's /run/shm tmpfs mount gets unmounted. Since the mount point /run/shm itself is set to root:root/750, this breaks any other package which relies on being able to write to /run/shm as non-root. (In my case, python's multiprocessing fails miserably due to the lack of write privileges to /run/shm, which is how I noticed this issue in the first place.) I tried debootstrap on clean and current wheezy and jessie installations, only wheezy was affected. Let me know if you need any further information. I seem to be unable to reproduce it with 1.0.60~bpo70+1 but I can with 1.0.48+deb7u1; I didn't spot anything obvious from a very quick look, but I'll try to track this down a bit later (probably after the release sprint). Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#764437: console-setup hangs during install in jessie/wheezy on eeepc 1005ha
Control: severity -1 important marv mar...@ctech.ca (2014-10-08): Package: console-setup Version: 1.113 Severity: critical Tags: d-i Justification: breaks the whole system Dear Maintainer, Installing Debian Wheezy or Jessie with a net install iso on my EEEPC 1005HA just won't work. It will hang or reboot on the installing base system around 99% when console-setup runs. I have tried running the setup with boot params acpi=off, nomodeset, blacklisting the i915 module, ... nothing gets the job done. Only way i've found to get around it is to rename or delete /target/usr/bin/ckbcomp during the install (and you have to be quick to catch it). After doing so and booting the now successful install, renaming /usr/bin/ckbcomp back, the system will not boot any more. I've tried installing with different keymaps/locales nothing seems to help... Hi, thanks for the bug report. Since this seems to be very (hardware) specific, I'm adjusting the severity for the time being. Hopefully somebody will be able to give some hints on how to debug this further. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Processed: Re: Bug#764437: console-setup hangs during install in jessie/wheezy on eeepc 1005ha
Processing control commands: severity -1 important Bug #764437 [console-setup] console-setup hangs during install in jessie/wheezy on eeepc 1005ha Severity set to 'important' from 'critical' -- 764437: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=764437 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/handler.s.b764437.14152910124290.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
cloning 762007, reassign -1 to src:win32-loader ...
clone 762007 -1 reopen -1 reassign -1 src:win32-loader retitle -1 win32-loader: Please use --- not -- on installers kernel command line thanks Reassigned a clone as discussed on IRC: (16:31:31) KiBi: ijc: it looks like win32-loader might need an update as well for the -- thingy (16:32:17) KiBi: e.g. s_install.nsi:233 (16:32:22) Sledge: probably, yeah (16:32:26) Sledge: OdyX: ^^^ (16:36:21) OdyX: ah yeah, right. Can someone file a bug ? I have an extra-full week-end. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1415292079-4042-bts-...@debian.org
Processed: cloning 762007, reassign -1 to src:win32-loader ...
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
clone 762007 -1
Bug #762007 {Done: Christian Perrier bubu...@debian.org}
[debian-installer-utils] Kernel command line handling change breaks d-i
user-params functionality
Bug 762007 cloned as bug 768340
768340 was not blocked by any bugs.
768340 was blocking: 764675 764676 764677
Added blocking bug(s) of 768340: 764675
768340 was blocked by: 764675
768340 was blocking: 764675 764676 764677
Added blocking bug(s) of 768340: 764676; removed blocking bug(s) of 768340:
764675
768340 was blocked by: 764676
768340 was blocking: 764675 764676 764677
Added blocking bug(s) of 768340: 764677; removed blocking bug(s) of 768340:
764676
reopen -1
Bug #768340 {Done: Christian Perrier bubu...@debian.org}
[debian-installer-utils] Kernel command line handling change breaks d-i
user-params functionality
'reopen' may be inappropriate when a bug has been closed with a version;
all fixed versions will be cleared, and you may need to re-add them.
Bug reopened
No longer marked as fixed in versions debian-installer-utils/1.109.
reassign -1 src:win32-loader
Bug #768340 [debian-installer-utils] Kernel command line handling change breaks
d-i user-params functionality
Bug reassigned from package 'debian-installer-utils' to 'src:win32-loader'.
Ignoring request to alter found versions of bug #768340 to the same values
previously set
Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #768340 to the same values
previously set
retitle -1 win32-loader: Please use --- not -- on installers kernel
command line
Bug #768340 [src:win32-loader] Kernel command line handling change breaks d-i
user-params functionality
Changed Bug title to 'win32-loader: Please use --- not -- on installers
kernel command line' from 'Kernel command line handling change breaks d-i
user-params functionality'
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
762007: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=762007
768340: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=768340
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/handler.s.c.141529214514646.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Unieke geschenk voor groot en klein
Deze email nieuwsbrief werd in grafisch HTML formaat verzonden. Als u deze tekstversie ziet, verkiest uw email programma gewone tekst emails. U kan de originele nieuwsbrief online bekijken: http://sendmail.itdude.be/zYPbh2 View this email online ( http://sendmail.itdude.be/zYPbh2 ) Bezoek webshop ( http://www.wildandsoftwebshop.com/ ) HET UNIEKE GESCHENK VOOR GROOT EN KLEIN Wild Soft is een Belgisch bedrijf dat de zachtste woonaccessoires ter wereld creéert. De Wild Soft dierenkoppen zijn er voor de allerkleinsten, maar ook aan de volwassenen werd gedacht. Bezoek onze webshop ( http://www.wildandsoftwebshop.com/ ) WILLIAM William is van nature wat tegendraads. Met zijn tartan uitzicht schept hij ongetwijfeld een unieke sfeer in het interieur. De Schotse ruit is al eeuwen populair, Reindeer William brengt deze nu op een ludieke manier binnen in de woning. Bezoek William ( http://www.wildandsoftwebshop.com/wildandsoft/abstract-line/william/ ) CARLOS Op zoek naar een fris en vrolijk item om jouw interieur net dat tikkeltje meer te geven? Rhino Carlos voldoet aan al deze eisen. Zijn vorm is pure fun en zijn fluwelen look zorgt voor een intieme, maar toch speelse touch. De kleur is origineel en zorgt steeds voor een zomerse sfeer in huis. Bezoek Carlos ( http://www.wildandsoftwebshop.com/wildandsoft/abstract-line/carlos/ ) BASILE Hey ik ben Basile de ijsbeer. Ik ben groot, sterk, maar vooral heel zacht. Mijn dikke vacht beschermt mij tegen de kou. Maar ik ben er zeker van dat jouw knuffels mij ook zullen verwarmen. Ik vind het fantastisch om me te laten glijden op mijn buik en ben dan ook een echte speelvogel. Maar ik kan ook stilletjes luisteren naar al jouw avonturen. En wees gerust…jouw diepste geheimen zijn veilig bij mij. Bezoek Basile ( http://www.wildandsoftwebshop.com/wildandsoft/plushen-lijn/basile/ ) CESAR Ik ben Cesar en men noemt mij ook wel ‘King of the jungle’. Hoewel ik het leuk vind om de baas te spelen, ben ik heel charmant. Wat je niet mag vergeten is om af en toe door mijn manen te wrijven, want ik ben heel trots op mijn gouden haardos. Ik ben heel sterk, moedig en wijs. Samen kunnen we de wereld aan! Bezoek Cesar ( http://www.wildandsoftwebshop.com/wildandsoft/plushen-lijn/cesar/ ) WWW.WILDANDSOFTWEBSHOP.COM ( HTTP://WWW.WILDANDSOFTWEBSHOP.COM/ ) Copyright 2014 wildandsoftwebshop.com ( http://www.wildandsoftwebshop.com ), All rights reserved. Not interested in our newsletter? unsubscribe ( http://sendmail.itdude.be/ugjwmyejgsghwbwsygyhbggeuheus ).
Processed: severity of 764437 is important
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: severity 764437 important Bug #764437 [console-setup] console-setup hangs during install in jessie/wheezy on eeepc 1005ha Ignoring request to change severity of Bug 764437 to the same value. thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 764437: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=764437 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/handler.s.c.14153036325566.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#767999: debootstrap/base-passwd: #767999 and #766459 should really be fixed in base-passwd
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 02:06:07PM +, Michael Tautschnig wrote: At least Santiago's and my opinion diverge on whether base-passwd is presently in line with policy on 3.8 Essential packages. Therefore the route from here appears to hinge on interpreting policy in one of two ways: my point is that base-passwd, at present, is not providing its functionality after just being unpacked - it does require postinst having been run. Santiago claims, if I interpret this correctly, that every package has to be configured at least once before being useful at all (irrespective of whether it is essential or not). I'm not a policy lawyer so I might be wrong, but: 3.8. doesn't give an exception for not configured before. 6.5. does give it but only for Pre-Depends rather than essential, and only for preinst (base-files uses it in postinst) Santiago's intepretation might come from 6.5.new-preinst`install' talking first about essential and pre-depends in one place, then about just pre-depends in the very next sentence. A non-strict reader might assume the second sentence omits and essentials for brevity. 1. Determine whether base-passwd is in line with policy on providing its functionality as an essential package. A) If it is, then debootstrap is buggy. Even if it somehow is, there's a practical problem: it's impossible to deploy a fix to a significant part of users. B) If base-passwd violates policy, then base-passwd is buggy. I say it is, but since the only consumer that matters is base-files, it might be safer to change the latter. My point of view is that base-passwd should be changed, and thanks to suggestions from Tollef last night the attached patch should actually achieve this. The idea simply is to sort out creating /etc/passwd and /etc/group in preinst already, so that these files will be present once the package reaches the state unpacked. I tested your patch when debootstrapping from squeeze, it did work. Should I test some more scenarios (cdebootstrap? 2-phase cross-arch debootstrap? some other distro?) -- or do you think it should be safe? -- // If you believe in so-called intellectual property, please immediately // cease using counterfeit alphabets. Instead, contact the nearest temple // of Amon, whose priests will provide you with scribal services for all // your writing needs, for Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory prices. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141106214440.ga16...@angband.pl
debootstrap and cdebootstrap vs systemd
Hi, I've run into a bit of a problem building a root filesystem for an ARM system where the kernel shipped by the vendor is 2.6 based. As systemd does not work there, I tried installing a sysvinit based system using --include and --exclude to (c)debootstrap. In short: this does not work. The end result is a systemd based system. If I use the --foreign flag, sysvinit is added to the download, and an attempt at installation is made when the system is booted, but this fails due to an unresolved conflict. The system image left is unable to boot, due to a segmentation fault in systemd (which is is probably not that important, as older kernels are unsupported anyway), and is stuck with a kernel panic. I haven't found a combination of flags that would create a root filesystem without systemd, as the dependency resolver in these tools will always pull it back in. Being able to create a root file system using debootstrap is IMO a rather central feature of the Debian distribution, and I'd prefer not to give it up. I don't have a lot of time in the coming months, but I could probably clear a weekend. Would it make sense to organize a meeting (Linuxhotel?) to fix this? Simon signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#767999: debootstrap/base-passwd: #767999 and #766459 should really be fixed in base-passwd
Hi, On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 22:44:40 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 02:06:07PM +, Michael Tautschnig wrote: [...] 1. Determine whether base-passwd is in line with policy on providing its functionality as an essential package. A) If it is, then debootstrap is buggy. Even if it somehow is, there's a practical problem: it's impossible to deploy a fix to a significant part of users. Yes, I can see that. But determining the package at fault would nevertheless help to see what the best fix is in the long run. B) If base-passwd violates policy, then base-passwd is buggy. I say it is, but since the only consumer that matters is base-files, it might be safer to change the latter. Well, as Santiago has said in many ways, the necessary changes to base-files could be painful as well. I'd rather see it the other way: if base-passwd were changed, it might as well be possible to simplify debootstrap further as it could be the case that the present dpkg -i call specific to base-files and base-passwd would no longer be necessary, i.e., they could just be installed in arbitrary sequence with the other essential packages. My point of view is that base-passwd should be changed, and thanks to suggestions from Tollef last night the attached patch should actually achieve this. The idea simply is to sort out creating /etc/passwd and /etc/group in preinst already, so that these files will be present once the package reaches the state unpacked. I tested your patch when debootstrapping from squeeze, it did work. Should I test some more scenarios (cdebootstrap? 2-phase cross-arch debootstrap? some other distro?) -- or do you think it should be safe? Cool, thanks!! If testing is trivial for you then I'm sure this would be appreciated (in particular the it did not work before, but not it works improvement). While I wouldn't really expect any new problems, I don't know enough about, e.g., cdebootstrap so maybe something could go wrong over there? Best, Michael pgps39u023zjj.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#767999: debootstrap/base-passwd: #767999 and #766459 should really be fixed in base-passwd
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 02:06:07PM +, Michael Tautschnig wrote: [ BCC'ing Santiago, Holger, Adam, Cyril ] Hi all, I'm refraining from quoting the preceding mails as most of you will have those in their inbox, and I'd rather summarise the situation right here: At least Santiago's and my opinion diverge on whether base-passwd is presently in line with policy on 3.8 Essential packages. Therefore the route from here appears to hinge on interpreting policy in one of two ways: my point is that base-passwd, at present, is not providing its functionality after just being unpacked - it does require postinst having been run. Santiago claims, if I interpret this correctly, that every package has to be configured at least once before being useful at all (irrespective of whether it is essential or not). Yes, and I should add that my interpretation of policy is based on the wording being used: Since dpkg will not prevent upgrading of other packages while an `essential' package is in an unconfigured state, all `essential' packages must supply all of their core functionality even when unconfigured. The use of upgrading here suggests to me that the rule saying packages must work even when in unconfigured state does not refer to the temporary unconfigured state of essential packages while they are being installed by debootstrap but instead the unconfigured state set by dpkg when they are being *upgraded*. I think that this interpretation is the best one to follow because it simplifies greatly the job of package maintainers in general, and essential package maintainers in particular. The job of debootstrap is to put everything together so that we can actually rely on the functionality provided by essential packages after debootstrap has done its job. By doing this, we transfer part of the complexity of the problem of putting a complete system together from the individual packages to the debootstrap tool. In a previous email I said something like we put the hacks in debootstrap so that we don't have to put hacks in the individual packages (Joey didn't like the wording I used). Well, debootstrap is not a hacky program really, it just unpacks and configures the packages following an order which is known to be good. But thanks to the fact that we made a certain set of packages essential and thanks to debootstrap, we don't have to use, for example, numeric UIDs in postinst, we can use root and mail. I think this is good and it's how we should do things. In particular, I think it would be good that we consider configuring every package at least once one of debootstrap's jobs, so that what base-passwd currently does is allowed. Now, a long patch is proposed for base-passwd. A patch which is quite a lot longer than the required patch that would fix this in debootstrap. I can't honestly tell Colin that he should not apply the patch, it's his package after all, but I should say that the patch seems ugly and hacky to me, and it introduces an additional complexily which IMHO is against the idea of having a tool like debootstrap to break the cycles and avoid complexity in the packages themselves. So, my opinion about the patch is that we should ideally not need so much code in base-passwd if we can fix the same problem by applying a one line patch in debootstrap. In either case, this is an issue to be solved between debootstrap and base-passwd maintainers, so I might better disappear and take a step back, like KiBi recommendsd. Thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141106225336.ga24...@cantor.unex.es
Re: debootstrap and cdebootstrap vs systemd
For the same reasons, for what it's worth I have a multistrap .conf which achieves sysvinit booting rootfs (but perhaps I'm doing some post-configure apt-get install commands in the build script, I'll have to check). If you're interested in the multistrap config let me know. My workflow with this involves qemu-binfmts on the build host (actually docker) which may or may not be desirable On 07/11/14 09:14, Simon Richter wrote: Hi, I've run into a bit of a problem building a root filesystem for an ARM system where the kernel shipped by the vendor is 2.6 based. As systemd does not work there, I tried installing a sysvinit based system using --include and --exclude to (c)debootstrap. In short: this does not work. The end result is a systemd based system. If I use the --foreign flag, sysvinit is added to the download, and an attempt at installation is made when the system is booted, but this fails due to an unresolved conflict. The system image left is unable to boot, due to a segmentation fault in systemd (which is is probably not that important, as older kernels are unsupported anyway), and is stuck with a kernel panic. I haven't found a combination of flags that would create a root filesystem without systemd, as the dependency resolver in these tools will always pull it back in. Being able to create a root file system using debootstrap is IMO a rather central feature of the Debian distribution, and I'd prefer not to give it up. I don't have a lot of time in the coming months, but I could probably clear a weekend. Would it make sense to organize a meeting (Linuxhotel?) to fix this? Simon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/545bfc67.8070...@yahoo.com.au
Bug#767999: debootstrap/base-passwd: #767999 and #766459 should really be fixed in base-passwd
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 10:44:40PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: B) If base-passwd violates policy, then base-passwd is buggy. I say it is, but since the only consumer that matters is base-files, it might be safer to change the latter. The only consumer that matters? What do you mean? Several essential packages use chown root:root. The reason wheezy's version of debootstrap fails on base-files is that it tries to install base-passwd and base-files in the same dpkg run. If debootstrap installed any other package using chown root:root in the same dpkg run as base-passwd, the other package could easily fail in exactly the same way. Adam, you want to put us in a situation in which we change packages to accomodate the order in which debootstrap decides to install them, when in fact it should be *exactly* the opposite! The job of debootstrap is to install packages in the *right* order, an order which is known to work. And I must say it again: Your idea that we should adapt all the packages is testing and unstable so that they work with a buggy version of debootstrap is not only absurd, it's also *harmful*. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141106230745.ga25...@cantor.unex.es
Re: debootstrap and cdebootstrap vs systemd
Simon Richter simon.rich...@hogyros.de (2014-11-06): I've run into a bit of a problem building a root filesystem for an ARM system where the kernel shipped by the vendor is 2.6 based. As systemd does not work there, I tried installing a sysvinit based system using --include and --exclude to (c)debootstrap. In short: this does not work. The end result is a systemd based system. If I use the --foreign flag, sysvinit is added to the download, and an attempt at installation is made when the system is booted, but this fails due to an unresolved conflict. The system image left is unable to boot, due to a segmentation fault in systemd (which is is probably not that important, as older kernels are unsupported anyway), and is stuck with a kernel panic. I haven't found a combination of flags that would create a root filesystem without systemd, as the dependency resolver in these tools will always pull it back in. Being able to create a root file system using debootstrap is IMO a rather central feature of the Debian distribution, and I'd prefer not to give it up. I don't have a lot of time in the coming months, but I could probably clear a weekend. Would it make sense to organize a meeting (Linuxhotel?) to fix this? You might want to stop accepting 2.6 as a base kernel version. Anyway, just use debootstrap and switch to sysvinit afterwards, done. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: debootstrap and cdebootstrap vs systemd
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 11:14:10PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote: I've run into a bit of a problem building a root filesystem for an ARM system where the kernel shipped by the vendor is 2.6 based. As systemd does not work there, I tried installing a sysvinit based system using --include and --exclude to (c)debootstrap. In short: this does not work. You can chroot to the system from the host machine, and upgrade to sysvinit. If your host can't run arm code, install qemu-user-static and copy /usr/bin/qemu-arm-static to the target system. -- // If you believe in so-called intellectual property, please immediately // cease using counterfeit alphabets. Instead, contact the nearest temple // of Amon, whose priests will provide you with scribal services for all // your writing needs, for Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory prices. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141106233306.ga7...@angband.pl
Bug#767999: debootstrap/base-passwd: #767999 and #766459 should really be fixed in base-passwd
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 10:32:34PM +, Michael Tautschnig wrote: I tested your patch when debootstrapping from squeeze, it did work. Should I test some more scenarios (cdebootstrap? 2-phase cross-arch debootstrap? some other distro?) -- or do you think it should be safe? Cool, thanks!! If testing is trivial for you then I'm sure this would be appreciated (in particular the it did not work before, but not it works improvement). While I wouldn't really expect any new problems, I don't know enough about, e.g., cdebootstrap so maybe something could go wrong over there? I just tested: no patchyour patch squeeze debootstrap ✕ ✓ wheezy debootstrap ✕ ✓ unstable debootstrap✓ ✓ hacked in #766459 squeeze cdebootstrap✕ ✕ wheezy cdebootstrap ✕ ✕ unstable cdebootstrap ✓ ✓ squeeze cdebootstrap dies after extraction, before unpacking: E: Execution failed: No such file or directory wheezy cdebootstrap dies immediately: P: Retrieving InRelease P: Validating InRelease I: Good signature from Debian Archive Automatic Signing Key (7.0/wheezy) ftpmas...@debian.org (or on my partial mirror: W: Couldn't validate InRelease!) P: Parsing InRelease W: parser_rfc822: Iek! Don't find end of field, it seems to be after the end of the line! E: Couldn't parse InRelease! So cdebootstrap failures are unrelated to this bug. -- // If you believe in so-called intellectual property, please immediately // cease using counterfeit alphabets. Instead, contact the nearest temple // of Amon, whose priests will provide you with scribal services for all // your writing needs, for Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory prices. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141107000218.gb7...@angband.pl
Re: debootstrap and cdebootstrap vs systemd
On Thu, 06 Nov 2014, Simon Richter wrote: I've run into a bit of a problem building a root filesystem for an ARM system where the kernel shipped by the vendor is 2.6 based. As systemd does not work there, I tried installing a sysvinit based system using --include and --exclude to (c)debootstrap. This sounds like #668001. Try applying the patch there, and see if that works. -- Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com Let the victors, when they come, When the forts of folly fall Find thy body by the wall! -- Matthew Arnold -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141107000217.gn24...@rzlab.ucr.edu
Bug#668001: how to build installer w/ patched debootstrap
Kenshi, or whomever, Perhaps a naive question, but... how would I actually apply and use the patch? It's not like patching a single source file and recompiling - I assume I also have to build a custom copy of the installer that makes use of the patched debootstrap. Specifically, for our situation, how to build an installer image that can PXEBOOT and then build a system on bare iron (server, no CD/DVD slot). Thanks! Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. Yogi Berra -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/545c15ef.1020...@meetinghouse.net
Bug#767999: base-files: fails to install with pre-jessie debootstrap
Control: tag -1 -patch Control: reassign -1 dpkg 1.17.21 Control: affects -1 debootstrap [ Context: debootstrap/wheezy is now unable to debootstrap either jessie or sid. ] Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org (2014-11-05): I'm not calling Adam's proposal insane. His proposal is just wrong. What I was calling insane is the fact that we are still having this discussion instead of making a debootstrap upload for stable. The situation could probably have started (and/or continued) in a better way if there would have been less fingerpointing/shooting the messenger/whatever you call it. But, from where I stand, several developers were actually checking facts after I cherry-picked the patch in to the stable branch, and I decided to wait and see where the situation was going. Apparently there are several views on the matter, and without commenting on their respective relevance, I'd like to emphasize several things: - Developers have limited free time. - Developers might be getting ready for the imminent freeze. - Uploading to stable means making sure the fix is right, rather than uploading hastily. - Uploads to stable don't appear magically on users' systems a few hours later; it takes a point release or users' having configured s-p-u in their sources.list; so I don't think any haste (see previous point) would help anyway. - Uploads to stable have to be reviewed by release team members, who might also be busy dealing with a flood of freeze-related requests at the moment. So I'd suggest taking a step back, reassigning/forcemerging reports when you have time for that, and waiting for some feedback; probably from me. Tests performed on an amd64 host running wheezy, debootstrapping amd64. Well I bisected the archive and the last debootstrapable jessie release was at 20141102T221202Z; looking at the set of updated packages between that one and the next one, it looks like… dpkg got updated from 1.17.13 to 1.17.21. And unsurprisingly reverting current jessie to dpkg 1.17.13 makes debootstrap work again. A few weeks or even days before the freeze doesn't quite seem to be the right time to introduce (not so) subtle changes in dpkg. Reassigning it to dpkg for now; and cc-ing the release team because of things like the #768346 unblock request. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Processed: Re: Bug#767999: base-files: fails to install with pre-jessie debootstrap
Processing control commands: tag -1 -patch Bug #767999 [debootstrap] base-files: fails to install with pre-jessie debootstrap Removed tag(s) patch. reassign -1 dpkg 1.17.21 Bug #767999 [debootstrap] base-files: fails to install with pre-jessie debootstrap Bug reassigned from package 'debootstrap' to 'dpkg'. Ignoring request to alter found versions of bug #767999 to the same values previously set Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #767999 to the same values previously set Bug #767999 [dpkg] base-files: fails to install with pre-jessie debootstrap Marked as found in versions dpkg/1.17.21. affects -1 debootstrap Bug #767999 [dpkg] base-files: fails to install with pre-jessie debootstrap Added indication that 767999 affects debootstrap -- 767999: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=767999 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/handler.s.b767999.141532403117857.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Problem with uefi motherboard.
My computer won't boot after a fresh install. Grub says unknown file system and starts rescue mode. I've tried searching some posts on the issue but none have worked. I have a 200MB efi partition that I did not set a mount point for. I read that setting a mount point isn't necessary. Ryan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/545c2e9e.9050...@gmail.com
