apt-setup: Should propose using t-p-u when testing is installed
Package: apt-setup Severity: wishlist After a (short) discussion in -devel, I came up with the proposal of activating testing-proposed-updates when users install testing, in a similar way that we currently propose activating volatile when they install stable. So, sending this as a bug report against apt-setup. I suggest this is done post-squeeze. Quoting Paul Wise (p...@debian.org): On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 6:38 PM, Christian PERRIER bubu...@debian.org wrote: Quoting Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org): Hmhm, out of curiosity, why is t-p-u “way riskier”. Mostly because there isn't any large pool of systems using t-p-u the way there is for unstable, so the aging process where we get testing in unstable before migrating the package never happens. This means uploads I wonder whether we (in D-I) could add t-p-u to the list of proposed repositories when users install testing. We already propose security and volatile (defaulting to both added): the same mechanism could be made for t-p-u when users install testing. Sounds like a good idea to me. When they reject t-p-u you could either add it commented out or with pinning such that it is not selected by default but when packages from it are selected then they are kept upgraded within it until the packages migrate to testing itself. AFAIK to achieve that you need pinning priorities 500 and 1000. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktinbf2ktsg7ppwmv4cnz74wvhdj2vkfq3n9wf...@mail.gmail.com ** CRM114 Whitelisted by: WHITELIST ** -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
please hint pciutils/1:3.1.7-5 (has udeb)
debian-boot and debian-release, please hint pciutils/1:3.1.7-5 (has udeb) Changes: pciutils (1:3.1.7-5) unstable; urgency=medium . * Update pci.ids with version 2010.08.23 * Fix out-of-date-standards-version * Fix xc-package-type-in-debian-control thanks signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#594461: apt-setup: Should propose using t-p-u when testing is installed
[Christian PERRIER] After a (short) discussion in -devel, I came up with the proposal of activating testing-proposed-updates when users install testing, in a similar way that we currently propose activating volatile when they install stable. One challenge that should be considered, is what should happen when testing become stable, and the meaning of testing-proposed-updates changes. For example now, testing-proposed-updates is packages intended for squeeze, and after the release, it will no longer have packages intended for squeeze. Should those installing testing today keep using testing, or should they get squeeze? If they should get squeeze, the testing-proposed-update source will give them the wrong set of packages after squeeze is released. I believe those installing testing today should get squeeze and continue to use squeeze after the release. At least that is what I expect when I install testing today. I am sure others might believe otherwise, and am not sure which view should have priority. Happy hacking, -- Petter Reinholdtsen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2flmxs9g5r7@login2.uio.no
Bug#594461: apt-setup: Should propose using t-p-u when testing is installed
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:03:40AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: [Christian PERRIER] After a (short) discussion in -devel, I came up with the proposal of activating testing-proposed-updates when users install testing, in a similar way that we currently propose activating volatile when they install stable. One challenge that should be considered, is what should happen when testing become stable, and the meaning of testing-proposed-updates changes. For example now, testing-proposed-updates is packages intended for squeeze, and after the release, it will no longer have packages intended for squeeze. Should those installing testing today keep using testing, or should they get squeeze? If they should get squeeze, the testing-proposed-update source will give them the wrong set of packages after squeeze is released. There is a 'squeeze-proposed-updates' alias for 'testing-proposed-updates', which will continue to work after release (when it becomes 'stable-proposed-updates' instead). So whatever method is used for configuring sources.list currently (and I think it's always right to use the codename here rather than the suite name, to avoid accidental dist-upgrades down the line) should apply equally well to testing-proposed-updates in that sense. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100826082906.gc3...@dario.dodds.net
Bug#594461: apt-setup: Should propose using t-p-u when testing is installed
Does it really make sense for users to use t-p-u? Anything can be uploaded there, rejected by the release team, and no upgrade path is necessarily provided for a system that installed a package from there and ends up tracking stable. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Activating t-p-u by default (was: Re: For those who care about their packages in Debian)
2010/8/26 Paul Wise p...@debian.org: AFAIK to achieve that you need pinning priorities 500 and 1000. A pin-value = 100 is enough in this scenario. 500 would have maybe even the wrong effect, as repositories which are not from the default-release - if set at all - get 500 per default (expect if the Releasefile says Non-Automatic: yes, then it is pin 1). So setting t-p-u too 500 would give it always a preference in case no default-release (which gets pin 990) is set. Example: Package: apt Pin: release t-p-u Pin-Priority: 600 apt: Installed: 0.8.0 Candidate: 0.8.1 Version table: 0.9.0 0 500 http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/ testing/main i386 Packages 0.8.1 0 600 http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/ t-p-u/main i386 Packages *** 0.8.0 0 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status Note that the candidate is t-p-u apt 0.8.1 and not testing apt 0.9.0 … In case APT::Default-Release (-t option) is set to testing the candidate will be 0.9.0 as testing will have a pinning of 990 instead of 500… but in this case 0.8.1 would be never a candidate as long as in testing is still apt 0.8.0 as 990 600 and if you manually use 0.8.1 from t-p-u apt will wait with an upgrade until this one or newer is in proper testing… So, to let that actually work a user should not have a default-release… Long story short: If you want to get updates from an archive only if you pushed a version previously from it: 100 = pin 500. Best regards David Kalnischkies -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktinoy2_9zczxmktndqe3xve2jx5-gbziybjbc...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Activating t-p-u by default (was: Re: For those who care about their packages in Debian)
* David Kalnischkies [2010-08-26 17:43 +0200]: Long story short: If you want to get updates from an archive only if you pushed a version previously from it: 100 = pin 500. Wouldn't adding a new field to Release files similar to 'Not-Automatic' but pin to 101 instead of 1 if this new field is set to yes an option for apt/Squeeze+1? This has been reported in #186767. Carsten -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100826165806.ga25...@foghorn.stateful.de
Re: please hint pciutils/1:3.1.7-5 (has udeb)
On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 17:48 +1000, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote: debian-boot and debian-release, please hint pciutils/1:3.1.7-5 (has udeb) Although pciutils has a udeb, it isn't on the list of udeb-producing packages which need -boot approval before migrating; unblocked. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1282851642.22850.953.ca...@kaa.jungle.aubergine.my-net-space.net
Bug#589676: [os-prober] Confuses the Vista partitions
Quoting Jérôme De Greef (jdegr...@gmail.com): I confirm this very annoying bug exists since months in unstable. Everything (and the way to fix it) is explained here : https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/os-prober/+bug/476625 Thanks for pushing us to look at this. I commit the patch proposed in LP. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#592924: os-prober MINIX detection
Quoting Feiran Zheng (famc...@gmail.com): Package: os-prober Version: 1.38 Severity: normal Tags: patch The MINIX detection criterial is fairly old, no recent MINIX installation can be detected correctly. As we are developing some new boot features of MINIX (Multiboot compliant for example), we are also trying to make configuring GRUB easier, as a result the detection of os-prober is patched. Thanks. It has just been committed. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#518808: [PATCH] d-i manual: document booting from DOS
Hello,
This is a fixed patch with FJP's comments addressed, I believe.
Frans Pop, le Fri 06 Nov 2009 04:16:39 +0100, a écrit :
I've looked at the patch from Holger (as that's the most extensive of the
two), but have some problems with it. My comments below.
Cheers,
FJP
On Saturday 19 September 2009, Holger Wansing wrote:
I have tested booting testing/squeeze from MS-DOS and here are some
improvements/updates to the d-i manual documentation on this.
Please consider to use the patch attached here.
--- en/boot-installer/x86.xml 2009-09-18 22:29:22.0 +0200
+++ en/boot-installer/x86_workingcopy.xml 2009-09-18 22:19:39.0
+0200
[...]
Boot into DOS (not Windows) without any drivers being loaded. To do
this, you have to press keycapF8/keycap at exactly the right
moment (and optionally select the quotesafe mode command prompt
only/quote
FJP:
AFAIK current versions of Windows (including XP!) don't have a safe
mode command prompt only option. This is ancient history. If you want
to revive this, we need to provide updated info in how to run DOS in the
first place.
I have replaced that with booting from a recovery or diagnostic disk.
-option). Enter the subdirectory for the flavor you chose, e.g.,
+option). Enter the subdirectory install.386:
FJP:
install.386 is only valid for i386, but for amd64 it should be
install.amd. As the section is for arch=x86, we should cover both
correctly. The best way to do this is probably to define an entity in
build/entities/common.ent, something like:
!ENTITY x86-install-dir
install.phrase arch=i386386/phrasephrase arch=amd64amd/phrase
And then use that whereever the patch now has 'install.386'.
I did it.
--- en/install-methods/boot-drive-files.xml 2009-09-18 22:29:22.0
+0200
+++ en/install-methods/boot-drive-files_workingcopy.xml 2009-09-18
22:23:24.0 +0200
[...]
+Copy the following directories from a d-i; installation CD or DVD to your
+hard drive, let's say to filenamec:\/filename:
FJP:
This is too vague. The directories *must* be copied to c:\, or at
least to the root dir of a hard drive because otherwise the batchfile
will not work.
But wouldn't it be much simpler to completely forget about copying files
and just say:
- mount the CD drive
- change to the CD drive
- cd to \install.{386,amd}
- run install.bat
?
It might be quite difficult to find CD drivers actually. On my laptop,
for instance, the recovery partition doesn't have any. Copying the
files ahead still permits to boot in that case. I have reworked it to
say to copy to c:\. I have added the possibility of booting directly
from the CD, however.
Samuel
Index: en/install-methods/boot-drive-files.xml
===
--- en/install-methods/boot-drive-files.xml (révision 64518)
+++ en/install-methods/boot-drive-files.xml (copie de travail)
@@ -16,10 +16,6 @@
and burning CD images or struggling with too numerous and
unreliable floppy disks.
-/parapara arch=x86
-
-The installer cannot boot from files on an NTFS file system.
-
/parapara arch=powerpc
The installer cannot boot from files on an HFS+ file system. MacOS
@@ -57,7 +53,8 @@
/parapara
Copy the following files from the Debian archives to a
-convenient location on your hard drive, for instance to
+convenient location on your hard drive (note that LILO
+can not boot from files on an NTFS file system), for instance to
filename/boot/newinstall//filename.
itemizedlist
@@ -82,6 +79,35 @@
/sect2
+ sect2 arch=x86 id=files-loadlin
+ titleHard disk installer booting using commandloadlin/command/title
+para
+
+This section explains how to prepare your hard drive for booting the installer
+from DOS using commandloadlin/command.
+
+/parapara
+
+Copy the following files from a Debian CD image to filenamec:\/filename.
+
+itemizedlist
+listitempara
+
+filename/x86-install-dir;/filename (kernel binary and ramdisk image)
+
+/para/listitem
+listitempara
+
+filename/tools/filename (loadlin tool)
+
+/para/listitem
+
+/itemizedlist
+
+/para
+ /sect2
+
+
sect2 arch=powerpc id=files-oldworld
titleHard Disk Installer Booting for OldWorld Macs/title
para
Index: en/boot-installer/x86.xml
===
--- en/boot-installer/x86.xml (révision 64518)
+++ en/boot-installer/x86.xml (copie de travail)
@@ -95,40 +95,46 @@
/para
/sect2
-!-- FIXME the documented procedure does not exactly work, commented out
- until fixes
-
sect2 arch=x86 id=install-from-dos
- titleBooting from a DOS partition/title
+ titleBooting from DOS/title
+para
-boot-installer-intro-hd.xml;
+Boot into DOS (not Windows). To do this, you can for instance boot from a
+recovery or diagnostic disk.
-para
+/parapara
-Boot into DOS (not Windows) without any drivers being loaded. To do
-this, you have to press keycapF8/keycap at exactly the
Bug#212881: Ed e me!
Hello lurr, Siate prudenti e prendete un momento per leggere il mio messaggio di testo a voi. Il mio nome bydi Ella. Ora sono 29 anni. Il motivo della mia lettera - pqqr il inizio della corrispondenza con voi! Non ho abbastanza di quella uomo che era sempre al mio fianco. Io sono donna molto socievole e amare una stile di vita sano. Ho un lavoro molto perfetto, che dcyde un sacco di emozioni. Sono pronto a dirvi tutto su di me in futuro se si decidere di rispondermi. Ecco il mio indirizzo email personale: kerobyane...@yahoo.com Spero di ricevere una risposta da voi, in alcuni giorni! Non essere pigro a scrivermi una risposta potrebbe essere la nostra comunicazione per cambiare il nostro destino. Il vostro nuovo amico Ella ragazza! Best wishes, ewxae astpm qnsk uvab. dvvs . -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/00f601cb4563$28cb44c0$c4342...@bdyjdkw
Bug#594461: apt-setup: Should propose using t-p-u when testing is installed
Hello, On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Joey Hess jo...@debian.org wrote: Does it really make sense for users to use t-p-u? Anything can be uploaded there, rejected by the release team, and no upgrade path is necessarily provided for a system that installed a package from there and ends up tracking stable. I didn't think about upgrade path but the revision there will be smaller then unstable so a package migrating to testing would be used in place of the older version. The only problem is if the upgrade path between them are incompatible. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems E-mail: ota...@ossystems.com.br http://www.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlkti¯zxz8qk9bdlthz808mwohxktqimpkyp_r...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Activating t-p-u by default (was: Re: For those who care about their packages in Debian)
Hello, On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 7:38 AM, Christian PERRIER bubu...@debian.org wrote: I wonder whether we (in D-I) could add t-p-u to the list of proposed repositories when users install testing. We already propose security and volatile (defaulting to both added): the same mechanism could be made for t-p-u when users install testing. Personally I like the idea. I belive it could be disabled by default and enabled in expert mode only. Objections? About the APT pinning I think the right place for fix this is in the Release file. This would make this change very safe for us and our users. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems E-mail: ota...@ossystems.com.br http://www.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlkting_yhbpbqnlhw5q+-gtbr1u57to3ckj0nyf...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#593812: Bug#593810: libc6: Segfault in libc by cupsd
reassign 593812 cups thanks On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 6:22 AM, rpn...@free.fr wrote: Now, this bugs is issued always once after the boot. If I restart by invoke-rc cupsd restart, no issue occurred. This has nothing todo with installer and then I am reassigning it to cups. Please report the issue on the affected package next time. Cheers, -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems E-mail: ota...@ossystems.com.br http://www.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlkti=mv48s941-o4vng=rzs8rx9zoyvztb2dzrg...@mail.gmail.com
Processed: Re: Bug#593812: Bug#593810: libc6: Segfault in libc by cupsd
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: reassign 593812 cups Bug #593812 [partman-basicmethods] Should warn about reusing existing partitions for / or /usr Bug reassigned from package 'partman-basicmethods' to 'cups'. thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 593812: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=593812 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: http://lists.debian.org/handler.s.c.12828679548036.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#593205: udhcpd: udhpcd does not bind to the correct interface
Hello Fabrice, On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 5:49 AM, Fabrice LORRAIN fabrice.lorr...@univ-mlv.fr wrote: Package: udhcpd Version: 0.9.8cvs20050303-2.1 Severity: normal Hello, Using udhcpd on a multihomed server, it seems not to use the interface directive in udhcpd.conf. This version is quite old; please test the one in squeeze since it is up-to-date. Let us know if it works for you and then we close this bug. Cheers, -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems E-mail: ota...@ossystems.com.br http://www.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktimy5iyocp5fbgd=ln_jhx002xvvt7egcsymy...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#593146: installation-reports: Grub Config/Install gives prompts in wrong order -
Hello Keith, On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Keith Ward ke...@chaos-realm.net wrote: Thanks for that, I tried running the daily netinst just now , in a virtual machine to see what results I could get the previous reported oddities have disapeared, however with this netinst I can't complete the install as it fails to install grub on /dev/sda. Please send your installation syslog (gzipped) so we can see what is causing it. A new try using a new daily also helps since this might be a fixed issue in last set of uploads. Cheers, -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems E-mail: ota...@ossystems.com.br http://www.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlkti=amdsnes_cltc1pdvhsqry6lg-29t_-4gm-...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#593109: hw-detect: Register g_ether after loading it
Hello Thibaut, On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Thibaut GIRKA t...@sitedethib.com wrote: Package: hw-detect Severity: minor Tags: patch For some (well, probably only the Neo FreeRunner), g_ether is automatically loaded by the installer, but it isn't loaded by the installed system. This patch registers g_ether, so that we can ssh to the device after installation. Ack; please commit. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems E-mail: ota...@ossystems.com.br http://www.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktimytsv6pjzhyk9n=ro2rbs5vfakpzm6g5ogg...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#586221: flash-kernel-installer/uboot-installer patch
Hello Martin, On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Thibaut Girka t...@sitedethib.com wrote: Here is a patch to do that (works only for the GTA02 for now). Can you take a look on this? -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems E-mail: ota...@ossystems.com.br http://www.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlkti=n_zp5cc0nvqoebk2id79a1+rp=5kdifngi...@mail.gmail.com
Re: [PATCH 1/7] Fix the generation of pkg-lists/standard-udebs
Hello, On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Samuel Thibault sthiba...@debian.org wrote: * Messy sources.list.udeb will come with non-udeb packages and duplicated udebs; handle those. I'd tend to think that this might be useful. Thoughts? I can't think a use case for it. I tend to agree with Jeremie patch specially because it is done in this specific target so not affecting other stuff. Samuel, do you have any use-case for this? Cheers, -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems E-mail: ota...@ossystems.com.br http://www.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktimckj6swbcupmggs=btwcx6fte2pccopwatf...@mail.gmail.com
Re: help me
Hello, 2010/8/17 abdellah abderazak it-supp...@hotmail.fr: bon jour I can't read French so please resend this message in English. Cheers, -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems E-mail: ota...@ossystems.com.br http://www.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktimdxgrcvomnawccuoj4ipzas0qhfrrtgquob...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#593146: installation-reports: Grub Config/Install gives prompts in wrong order -
Appears I neglected to copy in the Bug on the follow up to the previous email and sent a reply direct to christian, After booting the netboot image, and installing in expert mode using unstable, Grub works perfectly, and the install completes without an issue. Thanks! On 27 August 2010 01:28, Otavio Salvador ota...@ossystems.com.br wrote: Hello Keith, On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Keith Ward ke...@chaos-realm.net wrote: Thanks for that, I tried running the daily netinst just now , in a virtual machine to see what results I could get the previous reported oddities have disapeared, however with this netinst I can't complete the install as it fails to install grub on /dev/sda. Please send your installation syslog (gzipped) so we can see what is causing it. A new try using a new daily also helps since this might be a fixed issue in last set of uploads. Cheers, -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems E-mail: ota...@ossystems.com.br http://www.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br
Re: Activating t-p-u by default (was: Re: For those who care about their packages in Debian)
Quoting Otavio Salvador (ota...@ossystems.com.br): Hello, On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 7:38 AM, Christian PERRIER bubu...@debian.org wrote: I wonder whether we (in D-I) could add t-p-u to the list of proposed repositories when users install testing. We already propose security and volatile (defaulting to both added): the same mechanism could be made for t-p-u when users install testing. Personally I like the idea. I belive it could be disabled by default and enabled in expert mode only. Objections? Well, it would then miss the point of t-p-u having a wide exposure, which was the original point in this discussion. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
