Your message dated Mon, 01 Mar 2021 21:03:36 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#983751: fixed in libblockdev 2.25-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #983751,
regarding dosfstools-4.2 breaks vfat formatting of entire device
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem
Accepted:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2021 21:33:20 +0100
Source: libblockdev
Architecture: source
Version: 2.25-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Utopia Maintenance Team
Changed-By: Michael Biebl
Closes: 983751
Changes:
libblockdev_2.25-2_source.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
libblockdev_2.25-2.dsc
libblockdev_2.25-2.debian.tar.xz
libblockdev_2.25-2_source.buildinfo
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon (running on host usper.debian.org)
Processing control commands:
> reassign -1 libblockdev2
Bug #983751 [udisks2] dosfstools-4.2 breaks vfat formatting of entire device
Bug reassigned from package 'udisks2' to 'libblockdev2'.
No longer marked as found in versions udisks2/2.9.1-3.
Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug
Control: reassign -1 libblockdev2
Control: found -1 2.25-1
Am 01.03.21 um 16:54 schrieb Allison Karlitskaya:
https://github.com/storaged-project/udisks/issues/851
Thanks a lot for forwarding the issue. Reading the upstream bug report
this appears to be a libblockdev issue, so reassigning
On 2021-03-01 12:22, Michael Biebl wrote:
Am 01.03.21 um 11:56 schrieb Michel Meyers:
I have now created [device] sections declaring the slaves as managed=0
in the NetworkManager.conf (left over after uninstalling NM), but
anyone with the same config as me making the same mistake of
https://github.com/storaged-project/udisks/issues/851
On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 4:51 PM Debian Bug Tracking System
wrote:
>
> Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
> this Bug report.
>
> This is an automatically generated reply to let you know your message
> has been
hi Michael,
Thanks for the quick reply. I filed the bug here only because udisks
in Debian is the thing that I observe to fail. I don't know where the
cause is.
I'll happily forward the issue upstream, as suggested. For what it's
worth, dosfsutils *is* successfully creating the filesystem in
Am 01.03.21 um 13:59 schrieb Michel Meyers:
# /etc/network/interfaces -- configuration file for ifup(8), ifdown(8)
# The loopback interface
auto lo
iface lo inet loopback
# The first network card - this entry was created during the Debian
installation
# (network, broadcast and gateway are
On 2021-03-01 11:27, Michael Biebl wrote:
Am 01.03.21 um 10:41 schrieb Andrei POPESCU:
Control: reassign -1 network-manager
On Lu, 01 mar 21, 10:00:26, Michel Meyers wrote:
Package: networkmanager
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
I had a bond configured as described in Example 1 on:
Am 01.03.21 um 11:56 schrieb Michel Meyers:
I have now created [device] sections declaring the slaves as managed=0
in the NetworkManager.conf (left over after uninstalling NM), but anyone
with the same config as me making the same mistake of inadvertently
installing NM will land in the same
Am 01.03.21 um 10:41 schrieb Andrei POPESCU:
Control: reassign -1 network-manager
On Lu, 01 mar 21, 10:00:26, Michel Meyers wrote:
Package: networkmanager
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
I had a bond configured as described in Example 1 on:
https://wiki.debian.org/Bonding
This morning,
This message is from a tr*usted s*ender
Dear pkg-utopia-maintainers ***
To continue using your address pkg-utopia-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org confirm your ownership,
Continue pkg-utopia-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Processing control commands:
> reassign -1 network-manager
Bug #983750 [networkmanager] networkmanager: NM takes over slave interfaces of
bond
Warning: Unknown package 'networkmanager'
Bug reassigned from package 'networkmanager' to 'network-manager'.
Ignoring request to alter found versions of
Control: reassign -1 network-manager
On Lu, 01 mar 21, 10:00:26, Michel Meyers wrote:
> Package: networkmanager
> Severity: normal
>
> Dear Maintainer,
>
> I had a bond configured as described in Example 1 on:
> https://wiki.debian.org/Bonding
>
> This morning, my server's bond interface
Hi Allison,
thanks for your bug report.
I assume you do not consider this a regression in dosfstools, otherwise
you'd probably have filed it against the dosfstools package.
The Debian udisks2 package is not shipping any downstream patches in
that regard, so it would be best if you can raise
Package: udisks2
Version: 2.9.1-3
A new version of dosfstools (4.2) just landed on testing, and we're
suddenly seeing a new failure in cockpit's integration testing:
specifically, attempting to create a fat filesystem on /dev/sda (the
direct device, not a partition) fails. This works correctly
17 matches
Mail list logo
