Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Should the master list ignore the sarge has no amd64 issue and just
list amd64 for mirrors that have it in etch/sid?
Or should there be two entries for every mirror, one for sarge/!amd64
and one for etch/sid with all archs?
Mirrors.masterlist does not provide a
Jo Shields wrote:
Would it be useful to refine the rather rushed tools used to create the
diff, removing any manual steps from Mirrors.masterlist to .diff?
Yes.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Jo Shields wrote:
Okay then. Attached is the new, improved Masterlister program. It should
just compile with mcs Masterlister.cs, using the MCS compiler from
Mono. Usage is Masterlister.exe path/to/source/masterlist - a diff is
produced on STDOUT (with program info on STDERR, a bit like
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Jo Shields ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060808 12:17]:
What's the correct procedure for a) Defunct, unresponsive or incorrect
mirror entries such as 'Site: www.zentek-international.com' (wrong
Archive-http) or 'Site: natasha.stmarytx.edu' (timeout) b) the six
mirrors
Jo Shields wrote:
I'm not actually sure what the correct format is for Archive-architecture
when something's got all supported arches
The best thing to do there is to list all the arches.
and I'm not sure what to do about the hosts I
couldn't contact - but this should save someone some
A quick look at what Mirrors.masterlist says about mirrors carrying
amd64 finds a lot of probably wrong information:
* 154 mirrors listed as mirroring !amd64, but having all other arches. This is
probably wrong for most of them ... it's definitly wrong for the couple I
spot-checked.
* 69
Frederik Schueler wrote:
I would like to upload kernel-wedge 2.24 before creating new amd64
udebs, as there have been some changes to k-w which are needed for the
new udebs.
The k-w changes are specific to the nic-extra-modules udeb, and might
touch other architectures too.
can I just
Otavio Salvador wrote:
Frederik Schueler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Please point me to other places, where this will cause breakage, and I
will help fixing it.
AFAIK, you'll need to fix base-installer too.
Also debian-cd.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Frederik Schueler wrote:
the daily d-i images do not build for amd64, because of testing being in
a pretty bad shape, many d-i copmponents are still missing.
The last available daily image was built using the old, unofficial archive.
This no longer seems to be the case; I don't see any
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Can we list the amd64.debian.net mirrors as sarge only and the debian
mirrors as etch/sid? Not sure if the Master file had that info.
The sarge installer contains a copy (or 2) of the mirror list, so
changing Mirrors.masterlist for etch will not affect sarge, aside
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
Rejected: debian-installer-images_20051026_amd64.tar.gz: changes file doesn't
list `source' in Architecture field.
Second try.. this seems like it's expecting a sourceful upload for some
reason, which it shouldn't if you have the debian-installer source
package already in
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
The next problem is to actually get it into the archive. It's
getting rejected:
Rejected: debian-installer-images_20051026_amd64.tar.gz: changes file doesn't
say debian-installer-images_20051026 for Source
Rejected: debian-installer-images_20051026_amd64.tar.gz: should be
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
I would be suprised if it generated broken .changes files. I've
attached it.
It's broken, what's the listed debian-installer_20051026_amd64.deb?
Files:
cf4dca5ef36c3ab9e8794be42533fd5e 574138 devel optional
debian-installer_20051026_amd64.deb
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
We've pushed apt 0.6.42.2 to testing in the amd64 archive. We
didn't have the problem with the gcc-4.0 dependency and did a
local override to get the new apt in testing.
That's very good (and timely) news. Is there any status on getting the
debian-installer package built?
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
The problem now seems to be that rootskel-locale still seems to
exist in testing for some reason. It's unclear to me why it
still exists. This is causing the monolithic target to fail to
build because it can't find the locale.
I've asked the amd64 ftp-master too look at
An update on the d-i beta status. We're getting really close, AKA most
things seem likely to work now. Ccing some other relevant lists.
debian-boot:
- Thanks to fjp, base-installer 1.35.4 should get d-i working again with
secure apt and CDs, but we're currently mssing uploads of successful
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
I think if Lenart Sorensen remasters an AMD64 installer with
a 2.6.12 kernal *and* compiles the AHCI module (it's under
drivers/scsi) then I'll know what to do.[1]
Oh now you tell me. Off to rebuild again. It is enabled in the kernel,
bit I didn't add it to
Santi wrote:
I have installed succesfully debian amd64 from the netinst CD.
Thanks for the note. I've set its state to working on the web site.
I still wonder how the amd64 netinst manages to be 69 mb when 32 bit
i386 has a 110 mb one. Something *must* be missing..
--
see shy jo
I've extended the format of the the Mirrors.masterlist file, which is
used to record available Debian mirrors, to include machine-readable
information about what architectures are included in a mirror. This
information will be used by the Debian installer and other programs to
select an
Harald Dunkel wrote:
Joey Hess wrote:
I thought EFI was only an ia64 thing. Strange. Could you send a tarball
of /var/log/debian-installer/ from the installed system so I can try to
see why it was doing EFI stuff?
See attachment.
From the d-i status file:
Package: partman-efi
Status
gulfstream wrote:
When the Debian AMD64 installer load SCSI driver module, the installer
crashed. My motherboard is Tyan S4880, CPU are 4 Opteron 848. The SCSI
card is SLI 53C1030 PCI-X Fusion-MPT Dual Ultra320 SCSI, which embed
on motherboard.
Please describe the crash in as much detail as
Christian T. Steigies wrote:
The i386 install had one major obstacle, the onboard network was not
detected, it might have loaded the nic module, but DHCP and manual network
config did not work. I think this is due to a second network card magically
appearing on the box, ethernet over firewire,
Christian T. Steigies wrote:
There was nothing hooked up to the firewire, but the NIC was connected to a
switch. So I guess it is a bug in the link detection code. Could there be
anyhting in the installer log files? I could try to retrieve them tomorrow.
I also tried a knoppix 3.6 (i386), it
23 matches
Mail list logo
