Hi Anthony,
I don't know if you've seen this thread, it started here:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot-0105/msg00719.html
I figure you can provide some input.
Thu, May 24, 2001 at 11:35:42AM -0400 wrote:
> David Whedon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Thu, May 24, 2001 at 03:16:36AM -0400 wrote:
> > >
> > > On "install base" (debootstrap) step, I am getting a hang while it
> > > tells me to acknowledge that it created an empty ld.so.conf and other
> > > things. I would prefer if we not make the user have to hit return for
> > > that...
>
> > That's by design, but I'm happy to change it. debootstrap considers these
> > messages to be warnings, so we were displaying them.
>
> Ok -- it's a debootstrap bug then, or
I don't think it is a debootstrap bug.
> else debootstrap is complaining
> about packages in base which are not as they should be?
Anthony? care to comment?
>
> > Now those messages will be
> > displayed just like the informational messages.
>
> I'm not sure if that's really the right choice -- shouldn't we get it
> fixed in debootstrap instead?
>
It really depends on how we are going to define 'warning'. As it was ajt had
decided that some messages were warnings but it looked like boot-floppies didn't
want to see them. It sounds as though debootstrap and boot-floppies have to
agree on what constitutes a warning.
> > I considered making the choice
> > of behavior conditional on bootargs.quiet. Another option would be to change
> > what debootstrap thinks is a warning. If either of those sound better, speak
> > up.
>
> Fix debootstrap -- we do need some way of stopping for user notice --
> e.g., disk full.
debootstrap can still send errors, when we get them we bail.
David
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
