Re: installation-guide in svn: docbook/XML errors
Hi Karsten, Karsten Merker mer...@debian.org (2014-11-19): Hello, I just wanted to do some work on the installation guide and did a local html build from a fresh svn checkout on a current unstable system. Running sh buildone.sh armhf en html results in a large number of docbook/XML errors (log appended below). The build finishes nonetheless and creates a complete manual (at least as far as I can see), but something is obviously not as it should be. Unfortunately I do not know enough about the XSL stuff done by the build system to diagnose the source of the problem. Is anybody around who is more familiar with this topic and could take a look? I've been receiving notification of failures to build the manual for a while but never managed to allocate enough time to figure out where that's coming from. I've tried going back in time by a few thousands revisions, both in wheezy and sid chroots, with no luck. I really need to sit down and come up with some thorough testing. Maybe over the week end. In any cases, that's on my short term to do list. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
UltraHD installation: font too small
Hi, I am installing debian amd64 on a Lenovo Y50 with UltraHD 3840x2160 resolution. I use today's debian-testing...iso from http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/daily-builds/daily/arch-latest/amd64/iso-cd. I am using the default newt. The text size is very small on such screen, from the very beginning (language selection). Would it be possible to detect the resolution and increase font size if needed? Cheers, -- Eugen -- 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/546f4fdd.2030...@univ-fcomte.fr
UltraHD installation: partitioning step shows installation media too
Hi, I am installing debian amd64 on a Lenovo Y50 with UltraHD 3840x2160 resolution. I use today's debian-testing...iso from http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/daily-builds/daily/arch-latest/amd64/iso-cd. I chose for partitioning: guided – use entire disk. It shows there choices: the disc, and the two partitions/discs of the USB stick. As I am installing debian from the USB stick itself, I think it should not show the USB stick as disc to install linux on (or at least show them in grey). Cheers, -- Eugen -- 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/546f5548.2040...@univ-fcomte.fr
UltraHD installation: mouse not working in graphical install
Hi, I am installing debian amd64 on a Lenovo Y50 with UltraHD 3840x2160 resolution. I use today's debian-testing...iso from http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/daily-builds/daily/arch-latest/amd64/iso-cd. I chose graphical install. I am at step entering root password, still the trackpad mouse has not been working: it is at the center of the screen, but cannot be moved. Cheers, -- Eugen -- 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/546f5665.9070...@univ-fcomte.fr
Bug#770231: Amd64-efi installer becomes unresponsive on x86 bios
[ Re-adding the CC to the bug report ] On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:49:42PM -0500, Samuel Comeau wrote: Hello Steve, The intent of the report was that the installer fails silently, instead of crashing with human readable output. I seem to recall seeing an installer fail with references to incompatible architecture, but that may be faulty memory. Right, OK. I'm not sure about that myself... :-) That answers my question, too. How about we re-assign this to the kernel package and ask about such a message? I understand from your comment that this behaviour is known, but my pre-bug- report-search didn't turn up any relevant results about amd64 + installer + (hangs OR stalls OR unresponsive) + x86. The results I get are all about boot time, not installation time, unless I misunderstood something very fundamental. In my understanding, when I reach the installer menu, the boot procedure is complete. Correct - at that point you're in Linux with d-i running. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com The two hard things in computing: * naming things * cache invalidation * off-by-one errors -- Stig Sandbeck Mathisen -- 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/20141121153013.gc1...@einval.com
Re: UltraHD installation: mouse not working in graphical install
Hi Eugen, Eugen Dedu eugen.d...@univ-fcomte.fr (2014-11-21): I am installing debian amd64 on a Lenovo Y50 with UltraHD 3840x2160 resolution. I use today's debian-testing...iso from http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/daily-builds/daily/arch-latest/amd64/iso-cd. I chose graphical install. I am at step entering root password, still the trackpad mouse has not been working: it is at the center of the screen, but cannot be moved. It would be quite useful to turn your mails into proper bug reports, see: http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/ch05s04.html.en#problem-report I don't think we can do much about the font size issues; it'd probably make sense to allow installing something along with the installation medium (and I think some people are actually doing so). But this particular touchpad issue would probably be easier to track down with syslog and friends. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: UltraHD installation: mouse not working in graphical install
On Freitag, 21. November 2014, Cyril Brulebois wrote: I don't think we can do much about the font size issues; except making the graphical install the default :) Ain't that the case? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: UltraHD installation: mouse not working in graphical install
Holger Levsen hol...@layer-acht.org (2014-11-21): On Freitag, 21. November 2014, Cyril Brulebois wrote: I don't think we can do much about the font size issues; except making the graphical install the default :) Ain't that the case? Since the video mode is enforced, no, it won't help. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#770231: Amd64-efi installer becomes unresponsive on x86 bios
On November 21, 2014 03:30:13 PM Steve McIntyre wrote: [ Re-adding the CC to the bug report ] On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:49:42PM -0500, Samuel Comeau wrote: Hello Steve, The intent of the report was that the installer fails silently, instead of crashing with human readable output. I seem to recall seeing an installer fail with references to incompatible architecture, but that may be faulty memory. Right, OK. I'm not sure about that myself... :-) That answers my question, too. How about we re-assign this to the kernel package and ask about such a message? I thought that since there's the installer running, we could put an architecture check right there, so when you reach the menu, the installer would already be aware what it's running on. So when the amd64 kernel tries to start, it would correctly assume it's trying to run on compatible hardware, unless the installer prevents it. I'm not sure how that would tie in with the other installation methods, however, so it may be best to do as you say and let kernel deal with that. I understand from your comment that this behaviour is known, but my pre-bug- report-search didn't turn up any relevant results about amd64 + installer + (hangs OR stalls OR unresponsive) + x86. The results I get are all about boot time, not installation time, unless I misunderstood something very fundamental. In my understanding, when I reach the installer menu, the boot procedure is complete. Correct - at that point you're in Linux with d-i running. That implies that there is some form of kernel running? Obviously not an amd64 kernel, if it shows up fine even on x86. Therefore, I assume the arch specific kernel gets booted once the user selects an operation to perform. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com The two hard things in computing: * naming things * cache invalidation * off-by-one errors -- Stig Sandbeck Mathisen -- Samuel Comeau Student in Mechanical Engineering University of Sherbrooke -- 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/19409788.bZQc2CAa3P@garrosh
Bug#759424: patch fix
Control: severity -1 important
(rising severity as without patch di-netboot-assistant is almost useless)
Hi,
I gave Jonas' patch a try (thanks!) and it works fine here after I
applied the following patch-to-the-pach:
@@ -53,7 +53,7 @@
+ if [ $TFTP_ROOT/debian-installer/ = $dst ]; then
+ for f in ldlinux.c32 libcom32.c32 libutil.c32; do
+ srcf=$(find_file $f $src)
-+ [ -z $srcf ] || cp -np $srcf $TFTP_ROOT/$f
++ [ -z $srcf ] || cp -np $srcf
$TFTP_ROOT/debian-installer/$f
+ done
+ fi
return 0
@@ -70,7 +70,7 @@
+ cp -pft $(dirname $f)
$TFTP_ROOT/debian-installer/pxelinux.cfg/$(basename $f)
+ ;;
+ldlinux.c32|libcom32.c32|libutil.c32)
-+ cp -pft $(dirname $f) $TFTP_ROOT/$(basename $f)
++ cp -pft $(dirname $f)
$TFTP_ROOT/debian-installer/$(basename $f)
+ ;;
+*)
+ echo W: Unusual PXELINUX module \$f\ may not work.
12g
I attach the modified patch.
Best regards,
Andi
--- /usr/bin/di-netboot-assistant 2013-07-13 10:31:11.0 +0200
+++ di-netboot-assistant.patched 2014-11-21 22:05:13.102987843 +0100
@@ -200,12 +200,13 @@
# #
# find_file()
# Return the name of the first file matching criteria.
-# Parameters: dir name
+# Parameters: name dir [dir...]
# Returns: (STRING) file
# #
find_file() {
if [ $1 -a $2 ]; then
- find $2 -type f -name $1 | head -n 1
+ local name=$1; shift
+ find $@ -type f -name $name | head -n 1
else
echo
fi
@@ -241,7 +242,14 @@
[ ! $src -o ! $dst ] return 1
- newbin=$(find_file pxelinux.0 $src 2/dev/null)
+ if [ $SYSLINUX = $src ]; then
+ # avoid recent SYSLINUX EFI binaries incompatible with PXELINUX
+ [ ! -d $src/modules/bios ] || src=$src/modules/bios
+ # recent SYSLINUX ships PXELINUX at separate location
+ newbin=$(find_file pxelinux.0 /usr/lib/PXELINUX $SYSLINUX 2/dev/null)
+ else
+ newbin=$(find_file pxelinux.0 $src 2/dev/null)
+ fi
[ ! -f $dst/pxelinux.0 -a ! -f $newbin ] return 1
pxe_new_ver=$(pxelinux_version $newbin)
@@ -253,7 +261,11 @@
echo I: Upgrading PXELinux ($pxe_cur_ver to $pxe_new_ver)
for f in pxelinux.0 menu.c32 vesamenu.c32; do
- srcf=$(find_file $f $src)
+ if [ pxelinux.0 = $f ]; then
+ srcf=$newbin
+ else
+ srcf=$(find_file $f $src)
+ fi
[ ${f#*c32} ] || f=pxelinux.cfg/$f
[ -L $dst/$f ] rm $dst/$f
if [ -f $srcf ]; then
@@ -264,6 +276,13 @@
done
# Smooth transition to vesamenu
[ ! -f $c32_dir/menu.c32 ] ln -s vesamenu.c32 $c32_dir/menu.c32
+ # Add core modules at root (see https://bugs.debian.org/756275#49)
+ if [ $TFTP_ROOT/debian-installer/ = $dst ]; then
+ for f in ldlinux.c32 libcom32.c32 libutil.c32; do
+ srcf=$(find_file $f $src)
+ [ -z $srcf ] || cp -np $srcf $TFTP_ROOT/debian-installer/$f
+ done
+ fi
return 0
}
@@ -907,6 +926,21 @@
if ! copy_syslinux_bin $expand_dir $TFTP_ROOT/debian-installer/ ; then
echo E: No PXELinux menu installed. Please file a bug. 12
fi
+ # ensure only a single PXELINUX version is used for all its modules
+ for f in $(find $expand_dir -type f -name '*.c32'); do
+ case $(basename $f) in
+ vesamenu.c32|menu.c32)
+ cp -pft $(dirname $f) $TFTP_ROOT/debian-installer/pxelinux.cfg/$(basename $f)
+ ;;
+ ldlinux.c32|libcom32.c32|libutil.c32)
+ cp -pft $(dirname $f) $TFTP_ROOT/debian-installer/$(basename $f)
+ ;;
+ *)
+ echo W: Unusual PXELINUX module \$f\ may not work. 12
+ continue
+ ;;
+ esac
+ done
for f in $(find $expand_dir -type f -a \( -name default -o -name boot.txt -o -name '*.cfg' \) ); do
mv $f $f.ORIG
Processed: patch fix
Processing control commands: severity -1 important Bug #759424 [di-netboot-assistant] di-netboot-assistant: please update package for jessie / new syslinux Severity set to 'important' from 'normal' -- 759424: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=759424 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.b759424.141660683914874.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Re: Re: UltraHD installation: mouse not working in graphical install
I don't think we can do much about the font size issues; except making the graphical install the default :) Ain't that the case? I tested also with graphical install. The very first screen, presenting Install, Graphical install etc. is shown graphically and at visually good size. After choosing graphical install, the screen goes indeed graphical, but the fonts are as small as the newt frontend, i.e. very hard to read!! This is a somehow important problem, since nothing can be done to workaround it. The installer is also the first program a new user sees when installing linux. Cheers, -- Eugen -- 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/546fb3c9.8070...@univ-fcomte.fr
Re: UltraHD installation: partitioning step shows installation media too
On Fri 21 Nov 2014 at 16:07:52 +0100, Eugen Dedu wrote: I am installing debian amd64 on a Lenovo Y50 with UltraHD 3840x2160 resolution. I use today's debian-testing...iso from http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/daily-builds/daily/arch-latest/amd64/iso-cd. I chose for partitioning: guided – use entire disk. It shows there choices: the disc, and the two partitions/discs of the USB stick. As I am installing debian from the USB stick itself, I think it should not show the USB stick as disc to install linux on (or at least show them in grey). Not showing the USB stick when using mini.iso would be a disadvantage if it was the only medium available to install to. Greying it out seems to present no advantage. -- 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/21112014221526.a78e27a5d...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk
Bug#769616: tasksel: fails to preseed desktop on kfreebsd, hurd
Hello, Steven Chamberlain, le Sat 15 Nov 2014 02:20:53 +, a écrit : It was seen on kfreebsd and hurd that preseeding with: tasksel tasksel/first multiselect standard, desktop tasksel tasksel/desktop multiselect xfce no longer works, a regressions since wheezy; no desktop gets installed: https://lists.debian.org/debian-hurd/2014/11/msg00074.html Indeed, it should now be simply: tasksel tasksel/first multiselect standard, xfce-desktop I have already pushed a patch to Holger to fix it in jenkins. Samuel -- 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/20141122005741.gg4...@type.youpi.perso.aquilenet.fr
Bug#770525: tasksel: Task selection menu does not have Go Back button
Package: tasksel Version: 3.29 Severity: normal Hello, The Software selection d-i dialog does not have a Go Back button any more, which is not convenient when one wants to tinker a bit debconf before starting the long installing tasks step. Samuel -- System Information: Debian Release: jessie/sid APT prefers buildd-unstable APT policy: (500, 'buildd-unstable'), (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable'), (500, 'oldstable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: i386 Kernel: Linux 3.17.0 (SMP w/8 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Versions of packages tasksel depends on: ii apt 1.0.9.3 ii cdebconf [debconf-2.0] 0.192 ii debconf [debconf-2.0] 1.5.53 ii liblocale-gettext-perl 1.05-8+b1 ii perl-base 5.20.1-2 ii tasksel-data3.29 tasksel recommends no packages. tasksel suggests no packages. -- debconf information excluded -- Samuel ... rv_ et Ctrl alt F2 pour aller sous console rv_ mais c koi pour passer d'un bureau a un autre ! rv_ au fait c koi le raccourci pour passer d'un bureau a un autre 'question stupide cycyx ça dépend du window manager et de ta conf Firebird ce qui fonctionne toujours c'est CTRL-ALT-BCKSP -:- SignOff rv_: #linuxfr (Read error: EOF from client) -:- rv_ [~rv@217.11.166.169] has joined #linuxfr rv_ Firebird: MEURT... -- 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/20141122013440.ga25...@type.youpi.perso.aquilenet.fr
Re: Bug#770525: pkgsel: Task selection menu does not have Go Back button
Control: reassign -1 pkgsel Control: retitle -1 pkgsel: Task selection menu does not have Go Back button Samuel Thibault, le Sat 22 Nov 2014 02:34:40 +0100, a écrit : Package: tasksel Oops, sorry, I'm just realizing that in d-i it's called pkgsel. Samuel -- 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/20141122014354.ga5...@type.youpi.perso.aquilenet.fr
Processed: Re: Bug#770525: pkgsel: Task selection menu does not have Go Back button
Processing control commands: reassign -1 pkgsel Bug #770525 [tasksel] tasksel: Task selection menu does not have Go Back button Bug reassigned from package 'tasksel' to 'pkgsel'. No longer marked as found in versions tasksel/3.29. Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #770525 to the same values previously set retitle -1 pkgsel: Task selection menu does not have Go Back button Bug #770525 [pkgsel] tasksel: Task selection menu does not have Go Back button Changed Bug title to 'pkgsel: Task selection menu does not have Go Back button' from 'tasksel: Task selection menu does not have Go Back button' -- 770525: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=770525 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.b770525.141662064222758.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#770538: debootstrap: Sometimes fail with Invalid Release signature using default mirror
Package: debootstrap Version: 1.0.48 Severity: important Some times, when trying to build a chroot, debootstrap fail like this when using the default mirror: I: Retrieving Release I: Retrieving Release.gpg I: Checking Release signature E: Invalid Release signature (key id 8B48AD6246925553) When I retry, it normally succeed. The default mirror for debootstrap is URL: http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian , which at my place map to ftp.us.debian.org has address 64.50.233.100 ftp.us.debian.org has address 64.50.236.52 ftp.us.debian.org has address 128.61.240.89 ftp.us.debian.org has IPv6 address 2610:148:1f10:3::89 I reported this earlier to mirr...@debian.org, believing this was a problem with a mirror, and Simon Paillard noted that the invalid signature key is actually the end of the valid key: pub 4096R/46925553 2012-04-27 Debian Archive Automatic Signing Key (7.0/wheezy) ftpmas...@debian.org fingerprint: A1BD 8E9D 78F7 FE5C 3E65 D8AF 8B48 AD62 4692 5553 A1BD8E9D78F7FE5C3E65D8AF8B48AD6246925553 8B48AD6246925553 It has happend to myself, and I have also seen it happen on the ci.debian.net machine and today I saw it with jenkins.debian.net too. Here are a few example logs: URL: http://ci.debian.net/data/packages/unstable/amd64/d/debian-edu/20140918_181104.autopkgtest.log URL: http://ci.debian.net/data/packages/unstable/amd64/f/freedombox-setup/20140930_043843.autopkgtest.log URL: https://jenkins.debian.net/job/chroot-installation_jessie_install_education-language/20//console I suspect this isn't a problem with debootstrap, but it would be nice if debootstrap could report a bit more when this happen to make it possible to understand exactly which mirror was used when the problem hit. Could this be a problem with the mirror push, bad GPG parsing or DNS injection? The only bug I find with the same error message from debootstrap is URL: https://bugs.debian.org/573791 from 2010, which seem to be unrelated to this issue. -- 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: https://lists.debian.org/2fl7fynisnp@diskless.uio.no
