Bug#781511: debian-installer-8-netboot-i386: fails to mount ext4 file system at / for root on /
Package: debian-installer-8-netboot-i386 Version: 20150107 Severity: important User: debian-...@lists.debian.org Usertags: debian-edu Hi, while testing Debian Edu, PXE installations are failing with: 'The attempt to mount a file system with type ext4 in LVM VG vg_system, LV root at / failed.' When using the current netboot tarball -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 18544521 Mar 30 04:54 netboot-i386.tar.gz the error doesn't show up. Same with d-i-8-netboot-amd64, I guess. Wolfgang signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Processing of debian-installer-netboot-images_20150324_amd64.changes
debian-installer-netboot-images_20150324_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: debian-installer-netboot-images_20150324.dsc debian-installer-netboot-images_20150324.tar.xz debian-installer-8-netboot-amd64_20150324_all.deb debian-installer-8-netboot-arm64_20150324_all.deb debian-installer-8-netboot-armel_20150324_all.deb debian-installer-8-netboot-armhf_20150324_all.deb debian-installer-8-netboot-i386_20150324_all.deb debian-installer-8-netboot-kfreebsd-amd64_20150324_all.deb debian-installer-8-netboot-kfreebsd-i386_20150324_all.deb debian-installer-8-netboot-mips_20150324_all.deb debian-installer-8-netboot-mipsel_20150324_all.deb debian-installer-8-netboot-powerpc_20150324_all.deb debian-installer-8-netboot-ppc64el_20150324_all.deb Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon (running on host franck.debian.org) -- 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/e1ycyhm-ze...@franck.debian.org
Re: Package versioning and upgrades
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 06:50:22AM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org (2015-03-28): Alternatively, you could use release version numbers rather than code names: 0.6.3-1.3-1~Debian7 (rather than wheezy), and 0.6.3-1.3-1~Debian8 (rather than jessie) Using the same scheme as stable security updates might be a good idea instead of inventing another versioning scheme? Meaning ~deb7u1 or +deb7u1 for the first upload to wheezy, ~deb7u2 or +deb7u2 for the next one; as for jessie, use ~deb8u1 or +deb8u1 for the first upload, etc. And people better not rely on these being in alphabetical order, they'll run into trouble transitioning 9 and 10. The advantage of code names is that no one would assume jessie is later in alphabetical order than wheezy. Protection for idiots. -- hendrik -- 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/20150330132735.gb9...@topoi.pooq.com
debian-installer-netboot-images_20150324_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable
Accepted: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Format: 1.8 Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 11:25:16 +0200 Source: debian-installer-netboot-images Binary: debian-installer-8-netboot-amd64 debian-installer-8-netboot-arm64 debian-installer-8-netboot-armel debian-installer-8-netboot-armhf debian-installer-8-netboot-i386 debian-installer-8-netboot-kfreebsd-amd64 debian-installer-8-netboot-kfreebsd-i386 debian-installer-8-netboot-mips debian-installer-8-netboot-mipsel debian-installer-8-netboot-powerpc debian-installer-8-netboot-ppc64el Architecture: source all Version: 20150324 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Debian Install System Team debian-boot@lists.debian.org Changed-By: Didier Raboud o...@debian.org Description: debian-installer-8-netboot-amd64 - Debian-installer network boot images for amd64 debian-installer-8-netboot-arm64 - Debian-installer network boot images for arm64 debian-installer-8-netboot-armel - Debian-installer network boot images for armel debian-installer-8-netboot-armhf - Debian-installer network boot images for armhf debian-installer-8-netboot-i386 - Debian-installer network boot images for i386 debian-installer-8-netboot-kfreebsd-amd64 - Debian-installer network boot images for kfreebsd-amd64 debian-installer-8-netboot-kfreebsd-i386 - Debian-installer network boot images for kfreebsd-i386 debian-installer-8-netboot-mips - Debian-installer network boot images for mips debian-installer-8-netboot-mipsel - Debian-installer network boot images for mipsel debian-installer-8-netboot-powerpc - Debian-installer network boot images for powerpc debian-installer-8-netboot-ppc64el - Debian-installer network boot images for ppc64el Changes: debian-installer-netboot-images (20150324) unstable; urgency=medium . * Update to 20150324 images. * Use ftp.debian.org as mirror Checksums-Sha1: aaeda41c24cc85053477c8e7c1d1bcbdffa19891 2672 debian-installer-netboot-images_20150324.dsc fd8d824e91ef443a45aa8e8e22e45d610128abef 5384 debian-installer-netboot-images_20150324.tar.xz 7bb86a59cddfc7af5ed9934b686c0bc59329fcc9 57173378 debian-installer-8-netboot-amd64_20150324_all.deb a1af98f2d328e188b396c4459ba4042211ef1de2 10259766 debian-installer-8-netboot-arm64_20150324_all.deb eb79a1ad778cc9ce60961871ba018619385e61e9 49734136 debian-installer-8-netboot-armel_20150324_all.deb b5e3e27fec46dc9df462e63fc8e001c47fbd3725 41406200 debian-installer-8-netboot-armhf_20150324_all.deb 796295b963c0f62ba02d7f8c40aee0859bf1ba92 56105302 debian-installer-8-netboot-i386_20150324_all.deb a09c994c2625fa82228e903219f19fa37874aa83 41872780 debian-installer-8-netboot-kfreebsd-amd64_20150324_all.deb f4d60028032963fa15ec11f19f1aa30aaa076b44 13017264 debian-installer-8-netboot-kfreebsd-i386_20150324_all.deb f3c6a53a5d8451256b0d0129156310f4ff88b1ec 39691220 debian-installer-8-netboot-mips_20150324_all.deb b7d505d69e836959363f809eaa3470134ed4d3b8 47928486 debian-installer-8-netboot-mipsel_20150324_all.deb 5f6a6e1190370ae7a7f134539f35defa62a150d5 87708706 debian-installer-8-netboot-powerpc_20150324_all.deb ac8fe6dfeeef4dc4b52c6b86beaa6990925445a1 14153686 debian-installer-8-netboot-ppc64el_20150324_all.deb Checksums-Sha256: 03ebf4b298dbf099f0d78682d872d254060fc3bc62124a523579d7a807eef000 2672 debian-installer-netboot-images_20150324.dsc 14f04115e381f81e11a05281463dc2e6ebd8b09abeb12c96acc3b16a44c5e83c 5384 debian-installer-netboot-images_20150324.tar.xz fc88ae75312f0b10fea9e2268a8919610cd63aaff5862e8d4af659995f291bff 57173378 debian-installer-8-netboot-amd64_20150324_all.deb db50f2e212f253c4bdf55628bbe7d849310dc2e0d823e90b9f841b177b52aef8 10259766 debian-installer-8-netboot-arm64_20150324_all.deb b36f4eb064b20c7ab11f61aa257ab0c6332922848b1041602be2d909016ee80e 49734136 debian-installer-8-netboot-armel_20150324_all.deb e0cd1d6b2a27ee5199257ee27aab54f9821588f72d58db494179ea5823c89684 41406200 debian-installer-8-netboot-armhf_20150324_all.deb 9565d7118c50de59db61e4cde19a085260b23db4bcbab19556f4a4b227c784be 56105302 debian-installer-8-netboot-i386_20150324_all.deb 1f9f604f9f0abc00f75f474d6464a9b17427fc553d76108c47d90bd604d139c1 41872780 debian-installer-8-netboot-kfreebsd-amd64_20150324_all.deb 2f7944788d0872a51ab8c1526c2e423020488360b52693987bfe3dc98e2c1a77 13017264 debian-installer-8-netboot-kfreebsd-i386_20150324_all.deb 866d9dbbc0af0e56b87c126bf135d8e58a400b71c7fb8fc639df12f60ce911f3 39691220 debian-installer-8-netboot-mips_20150324_all.deb 2776163ed881f264dc2ea6217746071a985892c2d8e72d97efdcfe41393033cc 47928486 debian-installer-8-netboot-mipsel_20150324_all.deb 03dd526fb659a9aa84f3fd9b03b4fd058cdef7b97aee31271864fe6c7968e59f 87708706 debian-installer-8-netboot-powerpc_20150324_all.deb a889d59ad8f074fa64dab89f1433b223fca1e47fe5db359fe2d70ab719f9428e 14153686 debian-installer-8-netboot-ppc64el_20150324_all.deb Files: be815ae02b5a674989321cd9e3b22d8f 2672 misc optional debian-installer-netboot-images_20150324.dsc
Bug#779922: Quickfix for netboot
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Thanks Hans, that someone was me :-) Same issue with PXE booting for the AMD64 architecture. A few more details for noobs: Assuming you have a running install of Jessie for the architecture you wish to boot up via TFTP, check the version: $ dpkg -l | grep linux-image ii linux-image-3.16.0-4-amd64 3.16.7-ckt7-1amd64 Linux 3.16 for 64-bit PCs Have a look in the /boot dir and copy the kernel image over the kernel image in the directory tree of your TFTP service. Target is probably something like /srv/tftp/path/to/image $ ls -l /boot - -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 3109296 Mar 1 20:43 vmlinuz-3.16.0-4-amd64 In the PXE boot directory structure the kernel image was just called linux, so rename the original to linux.old and rename vmlinuz-3.16.0-4-amd64 to linux. Start the PXE installation once more, and hopefully this time you get further than the partitioning stage. Cheers! - -- Guy -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) iEYEARECAAYFAlUZUE8ACgkQtVeealbDyDWexQCdGY7RmpB5MxPqZchr7jqIdrtM rNAAni4ONzKPqpvKRM2qA8vV3UP3CvE+ =wI7Y -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- 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/55195052.9080...@member.fsf.org
Re: Package versioning and upgrades
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 09:27:35AM -0400, Hendrik Boom wrote: And people better not rely on these being in alphabetical order, they'll run into trouble transitioning 9 and 10. The advantage of code names is that no one would assume jessie is later in alphabetical order than wheezy. deb9u1 is less than deb10u2 according to dpkg, so it works fine. -- Len Sorensen -- 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/20150330134045.gg29...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
Re: Package versioning and upgrades
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 06:50:22AM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org (2015-03-28): Alternatively, you could use release version numbers rather than code names: 0.6.3-1.3-1~Debian7 (rather than wheezy), and 0.6.3-1.3-1~Debian8 (rather than jessie) Using the same scheme as stable security updates might be a good idea instead of inventing another versioning scheme? Meaning ~deb7u1 or +deb7u1 for the first upload to wheezy, ~deb7u2 or +deb7u2 for the next one; as for jessie, use ~deb8u1 or +deb8u1 for the first upload, etc. Yes that is an even better idea. -- Len Sorensen -- 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/20150330134115.gh29...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
Bug#781511: debian-installer-8-netboot-i386: fails to mount ext4 file system at / for root on /
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:35:24AM +0200, Wolfgang Schweer wrote: Package: debian-installer-8-netboot-i386 Version: 20150107 'The attempt to mount a file system with type ext4 in LVM VG vg_system, LV root at / failed.' Same with d-i-8-netboot-amd64, I guess. Yes, (sadly) the same with amd64. So confirming this BR. Additional information from me: * Real hardware * SSD, Solid State Disk * `cat /proc/partitions` and `fdisk -l /dev/sda` show '/dev/sda1' * manual `mount /dev/sda1 /media` returns 'mount: mounting /dev/sda1 on /media failed: Invalid argument' * `mount -t ext4 /dev/sda1 /media` returns 'mount: mounting /dev/sda1 on /media failed: No such device' * that gives in `dmesg`: '[ seconds.started ] ext4: Unknown symbol pagecache_get_page_fixed (err 0)' Groeten Geert Stappers -- Leven en laten leven -- 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/20150330145643.gw23...@gpm.stappers.nl
Bug#781511: debian-installer-8-netboot-i386: fails to mount ext4 file system at / for root on /
control: -1 merge 779651 stop On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 04:56:43PM +0200, Geert Stappers wrote: `mount -t ext4 /dev/sda1 /media` returns 'mount: mounting /dev/sda1 on /media failed: No such device' that gives in `dmesg`: '[ seconds.started ] ext4: Unknown symbol pagecache_get_page_fixed (err 0)' That is also reported in https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=779651 And FWIW in https://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2015/03/msg00525.html are new boot images announced. Groeten Geert Stappers -- Leven en laten leven signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Package versioning and upgrades
On Mar 30, 2015, at 6:50 AM, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Meaning ~deb7u1 or +deb7u1 for the first upload to wheezy, ~deb7u2 or +deb7u2 for the next one; as for jessie, use ~deb8u1 or +deb8u1 for the first upload, etc. I used to do something like that, but because the 'Dailies' is directly from the git release, git-buildpackage wouldn't create a tar ball that worked. It refused to create one because there was [to much] difference between the '.orig.tar.gz' (which was/is based on the 'Released') one and the code that's in there (in the source directory) now. This is because all packages is called '0.6.3' as base. 0.6.3-1~wheezy vs. 0.6.3-40-0f7d2a-wheezy Although the latter one is 'almost 0.6.4'… So from this, and from what is the Debian GNU/Linux packaging standards (what I remember from it :), it looks like the latter one only have Debian GNU/Linux updates, not source. Which isn't the case... In the Dailies this is not a problem (to have the tilde), because that really is a correct, new source. But I should probably change that to, just for consistency... Also, S3 can't handle '+' in the filename, so I have to remember to make hard links (or copies) of the file, but with a space instead of a +! And most of the times I forgot about that, so... Also, because the 'Dailies' for Wheezy and Jessie are _identical_ (down to the last byte - source vise at least, including the debian directory), I thought it was smarter to use the original suggestion - 'nothing is higher than something'… So having two different versions (after the ~ or +), doesn't make much sense - they indicate that there's a difference between the packages. Which was my first mistake - I started counting from the one for the first version I created on each platform and that, in part, gave me this problem in the first place - if I hadn't, maybe I would have discovered the problem earlier… The original suggestion takes all that into account - * it makes it easier to see that the packages are identical, * there's no plus to screw up S3, * there's no tilde to mess with the 'orig.tar.gz' file and * the upgrade path works. The only downside is that I can't easily find only Jessie packages with a simple find in my repository :). But I can live with that, there's other ways to find that out (that are only slightly more time consuming :D But I thank everyone for their suggestion. I really DO appreciate it! But for me the case is closed :). -- Life sucks and then you die signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Bug#781511: debian-installer-8-netboot-i386: fails to mount ext4 file system at / for root on /
control: merge -1 779651 stop Package from http://incoming.debian.org/debian-buildd/pool/main/d/debian-installer-netboot-images/ ( debian-installer-8-netboot-amd64_20150324_all.deb ) gets beyond the error! Groeten Geert Stappers -- Leven en laten leven -- 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/20150330154314.gz23...@gpm.stappers.nl
Processed (with 1 errors): Re: Bug#781511: debian-installer-8-netboot-i386: fails to mount ext4 file system at / for root on /
Processing control commands: merge -1 779651 Bug #781511 [debian-installer-8-netboot-i386] debian-installer-8-netboot-i386: fails to mount ext4 file system at / for root on / Unable to merge bugs because: severity of #779651 is 'normal' not 'important' package of #779651 is 'installation-reports' not 'debian-installer-8-netboot-i386' Failed to merge 781511: Did not alter merged bugs -- 779651: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=779651 781511: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=781511 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.b781511.14277301965642.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#781511: debian-installer-8-netboot-i386: fails to mount ext4 file system at / for root on /
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 05:43:14PM +0200, Geert Stappers wrote: Package from http://incoming.debian.org/debian-buildd/pool/main/d/debian-installer-netboot-images/ ( debian-installer-8-netboot-amd64_20150324_all.deb ) gets beyond the error! Same here with debian-installer-8-netboot-i386_20150324_all.deb Wolfgang signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#781439: cdebconf-text-udeb: should allow text shortcuts
Cyril Brulebois, le Mon 30 Mar 2015 18:38:49 +0200, a écrit : Samuel Thibault sthiba...@debian.org (2015-03-30): Samuel Thibault, le Sun 29 Mar 2015 12:17:16 +0200, a écrit : When using the vocalized installer, the first question (language) is quite tedious: there are 50 choices, which means that on average the user will have to listen to 25 choices before hearing what he wants. And he has to, to know which number he has to type, unless knowing by heart the number (which is different from release to release since we add languages). It would be useful that cdebconf-text-udeb accept not only numbers, but also shortcuts, for instance fr or French. The former will probably be easier to implement since that's the Choices-C. The attached patch is doing it quite easily indeed. Would it be OK for Jessie? Given the (prospective) timing for the release, it seems quite late. At first glance, I think I'd prefer: getting that added after the release, tested thoroughly, and maybe added through p-u for the next point release. That would look safer to me, even if that means a 1+ month delay (I think that's the usual for the 1st point release), counting from the release date. What do you think? Ok, that's fine by me. 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/20150330164552.GR2385@type
Processed: Re: Bug#781439: cdebconf-text-udeb: should allow text shortcuts
Processing control commands: tags -1 + patch Bug #781439 [cdebconf-text-udeb] cdebconf-text-udeb: should allow text shortcuts Added tag(s) patch. -- 781439: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=781439 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.b781439.142773275722684.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#781511: debian-installer-8-netboot-i386: fails to mount ext4 file system at / for root on /
Control: -1 close stop On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 06:46:17PM +0200, Wolfgang Schweer wrote: On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 05:43:14PM +0200, Geert Stappers wrote: Package from http://incoming.debian.org/debian-buildd/pool/main/d/debian-installer-netboot-images/ ( debian-installer-8-netboot-amd64_20150324_all.deb ) gets beyond the error! Same here with debian-installer-8-netboot-i386_20150324_all.deb Thanks reporting. Groeten Geert Stappers Closing this bugreport -- Leven en laten leven -- 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/20150330171309.ga23...@gpm.stappers.nl
Re: Bug#761815: installation adds entries for USB media to /etc/fstab which confuse udisks
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 11:21:08PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 11:45:40PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Steve McIntyre st...@einval.com (2015-01-17):
I'm thinking the best way to go with this is to simply drop this misc
USB device support altogether from partman-target. Any objections?
Not from me.
OK, cool. Committing shortly. :-)
Right, it seems that was too conservative and still left hd-media
devices listed. We probably don't want those either. Let's try this:
don't add *any* USB devices to /etc/fstab:
diff --git a/debian/changelog b/debian/changelog
index c619533..df293e6 100644
--- a/debian/changelog
+++ b/debian/changelog
@@ -1,3 +1,11 @@
+partman-target (95) unstable; urgency=medium
+
+ [ Steve McIntyre ]
+ * Further extend the fix for #761815 - don't add *any* USB devices
+to /etc/fstab.
+
+ -- Steve McIntyre 93...@debian.org Mon, 30 Mar 2015 18:10:31 +0100
+
partman-target (94) unstable; urgency=medium
[ Steve McIntyre ]
diff --git a/finish.d/fstab_removable_media_entries
b/finish.d/fstab_removable_media_entries
index 7db9e34..f132200 100755
--- a/finish.d/fstab_removable_media_entries
+++ b/finish.d/fstab_removable_media_entries
@@ -105,70 +105,3 @@ case `udpkg --print-os` in
;;
esac
-# See if a usb storage device is plugged in right now. If so, assume it is
-# removable media unless the disk is already listed in the fstab.
-HD_MEDIA=$(grep /hd-media /proc/mounts | cut -d ' ' -f 1)
-if [ -n $HD_MEDIA ]; then
- HD_MEDIA=$(mapdevfs $HD_MEDIA)
-fi
-founddevs=
-if [ -d /sys/block ]; then
- if type udevadm /dev/null 21; then
- device_info () {
- udevadm info $@
- }
- elif type udevinfo /dev/null 21; then
- device_info () {
- udevinfo $@
- }
- fi
-fi
-if type device_info /dev/null 21; then
- disk_containing () {
- dirname $(device_info -q path -n $1)
- }
- partitions=$(list-devices partition)
- for dev in $partitions; do
- if ! device_info -q env -n $dev | grep -q '^ID_BUS=usb$'; then
- continue
- fi
- disk=$(disk_containing $dev)
- for otherdev in $partitions; do
- if [ $(disk_containing $otherdev) = $disk ] \
- grep -q ^$otherdev /target/etc/fstab; then
- continue 2
- fi
- done
- mapdev=$(mapdevfs $dev)
- founddevs=${founddevs:+$founddevs }$mapdev
- done
-fi
-USBDEVICES=
-for dev in $founddevs; do
- if [ -z $USBDEVICES ]; then
- USBDEVICES=$dev
- else
- if [ $dev = $HD_MEDIA ]; then
- # If installing from usb, list that device first
- USBDEVICES=$dev $USBDEVICES
-
- # But explicitly don't add entries for other
- # random USB devices that are neither
- # installation sources nor partitions we've
- # added into fstab already. They're not
- # useful
- fi
- fi
-done
-
-case `udpkg --print-os` in
- linux)
- populate_media usb auto rw,user,noauto $USBDEVICES
- ;;
- kfreebsd)
- populate_media usb auto rw,noauto $USBDEVICES
- ;;
- hurd)
- populate_media usb auto rw,noauto $USBDEVICES
- ;;
-esac
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com
I've only once written 'SQL is my bitch' in a comment. But that code
is in use on a military site... -- Simon Booth
--
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/20150330172042.gc29...@einval.com
Bug#781439: cdebconf-text-udeb: should allow text shortcuts
Control: tags -1 + patch
Hello,
Samuel Thibault, le Sun 29 Mar 2015 12:17:16 +0200, a écrit :
When using the vocalized installer, the first question (language) is
quite tedious: there are 50 choices, which means that on average the
user will have to listen to 25 choices before hearing what he wants. And
he has to, to know which number he has to type, unless knowing by heart
the number (which is different from release to release since we add
languages). It would be useful that cdebconf-text-udeb accept not only
numbers, but also shortcuts, for instance fr or French. The former will
probably be easier to implement since that's the Choices-C.
The attached patch is doing it quite easily indeed. Would it be OK for
Jessie?
Samuel
diff --git a/src/modules/frontend/text/text.c b/src/modules/frontend/text/text.c
index 9bae514..e90b837 100644
--- a/src/modules/frontend/text/text.c
+++ b/src/modules/frontend/text/text.c
@@ -590,7 +590,7 @@ static int text_handler_multiselect(struct frontend *obj,
struct question *q)
static int text_handler_select(struct frontend *obj, struct question *q)
{
struct choices *choices = NULL;
- char answer[10];
+ char answer[128];
int i, choice, def = -1;
const char *defval;
int ret = DC_OK;
@@ -640,8 +640,19 @@ static int text_handler_select(struct frontend *obj,
struct question *q)
}
if (ISEMPTY(answer))
choice = def;
- else
+ else {
choice = atoi(answer) - 1;
+ if (choice == -1) {
+ /* Not a number, perhaps the value */
+ for (i = 0; i choices-count; i++) {
+ if
(strcasecmp(choices-choices[choices-tindex[i]], answer) == 0) {
+ /* Yes */
+ choice = i;
+ break;
+ }
+ }
+ }
+ }
} while (choice 0 || choice = choices-count);
question_setvalue(q, choices-choices[choices-tindex[choice]]);
Bug#781511: debian-installer-8-netboot-i386: fails to mount ext4 file system at / for root on /
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 05:43:14PM +0200, Geert Stappers wrote: Package from http://incoming.debian.org/debian-buildd/pool/main/d/debian-installer-netboot-images/ ( debian-installer-8-netboot-amd64_20150324_all.deb ) gets beyond the error! debian-installer-8-netboot-amd64_20150324_all.deb works as well. Wolfgang signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#781439: cdebconf-text-udeb: should allow text shortcuts
Source: cdebconf-text-udeb Version: 0.192 Severity: wishlist User: debian-accessibil...@lists.debian.org Usertags: a11y Hello, When using the vocalized installer, the first question (language) is quite tedious: there are 50 choices, which means that on average the user will have to listen to 25 choices before hearing what he wants. And he has to, to know which number he has to type, unless knowing by heart the number (which is different from release to release since we add languages). It would be useful that cdebconf-text-udeb accept not only numbers, but also shortcuts, for instance fr or French. The former will probably be easier to implement since that's the Choices-C. Samuel -- System Information: Debian Release: 8.0 APT prefers testing APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'buildd-unstable'), (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'stable'), (500, 'oldstable'), (1, 'buildd-experimental'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: i386 Kernel: Linux 3.19.0 (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 Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) -- Samuel je n ai cité aucun message et sur irc on parle effectivement comme des enfants de 5 ans na! 3. Quand tu cite un message, répond _après_ ce que tu cites ! -+- Yota in : Guide du Neuneu d'Usenet - A un Yota près c'était bon -+- -- 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/20150329101716.GA31562@type
Bug#781439: cdebconf-text-udeb: should allow text shortcuts
Samuel Thibault sthiba...@debian.org (2015-03-30): Samuel Thibault, le Sun 29 Mar 2015 12:17:16 +0200, a écrit : When using the vocalized installer, the first question (language) is quite tedious: there are 50 choices, which means that on average the user will have to listen to 25 choices before hearing what he wants. And he has to, to know which number he has to type, unless knowing by heart the number (which is different from release to release since we add languages). It would be useful that cdebconf-text-udeb accept not only numbers, but also shortcuts, for instance fr or French. The former will probably be easier to implement since that's the Choices-C. The attached patch is doing it quite easily indeed. Would it be OK for Jessie? Given the (prospective) timing for the release, it seems quite late. At first glance, I think I'd prefer: getting that added after the release, tested thoroughly, and maybe added through p-u for the next point release. That would look safer to me, even if that means a 1+ month delay (I think that's the usual for the 1st point release), counting from the release date. What do you think? Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#744865: Add check and warning for unetbootin
Gah, I never followed up on this. Patch v2 with minor wording changes
as suggested by Holger...
It would be nice to get this in before release...
diff --git a/debian/cdrom-detect.postinst b/debian/cdrom-detect.postinst
index 3446a06..6bf2454 100755
--- a/debian/cdrom-detect.postinst
+++ b/debian/cdrom-detect.postinst
@@ -223,6 +223,22 @@ while true; do
fi
done
+# Check for unetbootin files
+UNETBOOTIN_FILES=ubnfilel.txt ubninit ubnkern ubnpathl.txt
+UNETBOOTIN_DETECTED=0
+for file in ${UNETBOOTIN_FILES}; do
+ if [ -f /cdrom/$file ] ; then
+ UNETBOOTIN_DETECTED=1
+ break
+ fi
+done
+
+# If we found any, warn the user
+if [ $UNETBOOTIN_DETECTED = 1 ]; then
+ db_input critical cdrom-detect/unetbootin_detected || [ $? -eq 30 ]
+ db_go
+fi
+
# Get all the pool directories into the dentry cache, to cut down on seek
# times.
poolcount=$(set -- /cdrom/pool/*/*; echo $#)
diff --git a/debian/cdrom-detect.templates b/debian/cdrom-detect.templates
index 3db18bc..d597ff8 100644
--- a/debian/cdrom-detect.templates
+++ b/debian/cdrom-detect.templates
@@ -94,6 +94,19 @@ _Description: CD-ROM detected
The CD-ROM autodetection was successful. A CD-ROM drive has been found and it
currently contains the CD ${cdname}. The installation will now continue.
+Template: cdrom-detect/unetbootin_detected
+Type: note
+# :sl2:
+_Description: UNetbootin media detected
+ It appears that your installation medium was generated using
+ UNetbootin. UNetbootin is regularly linked with difficult or
+ unreproducible problem reports from Debian Installer users; if you
+ have problems using this installation medium, please try your
+ installation again without using UNetbootin before reporting issues.
+ .
+ The installation guide contains more information on how to create a
+ USB installation medium directly without UNetbootin.
+
Template: cdrom-detect/wrong-cd
Type: error
# :sl2:
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com
We don't need no education.
We don't need no thought control.
--
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/20150330163951.gb29...@einval.com
Processed: reassign 700352 to cdebconf-text-udeb
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: reassign 700352 cdebconf-text-udeb Bug #700352 [src:cdebconf-text-udeb] cdebconf-text-udeb: Not enough feedback on % progression Warning: Unknown package 'src:cdebconf-text-udeb' Bug reassigned from package 'src:cdebconf-text-udeb' to 'cdebconf-text-udeb'. No longer marked as found in versions cdebconf-text-udeb/0.181. Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #700352 to the same values previously set thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 700352: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=700352 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.c.142773205118017.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Naming conventions
Using version numbers (8.0u1) and release codenames (jessie), each has its advantages.Perhaps the best solutions is to combine the two, something like (8.0u1-jessie). Version numbers are great for identifying exactly where the codebase is sequentially.Codenames have more practical usefulness. For example, I am working on building d-i with the ZFS integration Turbo F. et. al. has done.I am trying to build it for wheezy, but keep running into library dependency errors because I am using too new versions of base-installer, grub-installer, partman-target, partman-zfs, or debian-installer because the git masters have jessie updates. It is hard to say which package is too new because all the git tags are only version numbers, no codenames. So I need a way to map codenames (wheezy) to version numbers for these packages. I am not sure how to get this information other than trial and error or asking someone who knows. Having combined version numbers and codenames would solve problems such as this. Sam Samuel Younge samuel.yo...@live.com
Bug#781551: installation-reports: d-i does not set boot flag on boot partition
Package: installation-reports
Severity: normal
Tags: d-i
Dear Maintainer,
* I tied to use Jessie-RC2 intaller to install jessie on a rescue usb hd ?
* I put debian-jessie-DI-rc2-amd64-netinst.iso on {cd,sdcard,usbkey} and
boot on it, asking to install on sdb (my usb disk).
* Install was OK except in the case of sdcard) but at boot time, even asking
bios to boot on sdb, it boots on main disk.
After trying chroot [sdb] grub-install update-grub rebooting and so on I
noticed that the boot flag was not set on sdb1. Setting it with cfdisk allowed
me to boot on the usb disk.
* What outcome did you expect instead?
I wished I could install jessie on an usb disk and provided bios configured to
boot on usb disk, the system should boot on the newly jessie install.
-- Package-specific info:
Boot method: cd
Image version: debian-jessie-DI-rc2-amd64-netinst.iso
Date: Date and time of the install
Machine: EliteBook 6930p from hp
Partitions: df -Tl will do; the raw partition table is preferred
Base System Installation Checklist:
[O] = OK, [E] = Error (please elaborate below), [ ] = didn't try it
Initial boot: [ ]
Detect network card:[ ]
Configure network: [ ]
Detect CD: [ ]
Load installer modules: [ ]
Clock/timezone setup: [ ]
User/password setup:[ ]
Detect hard drives: [ ]
Partition hard drives: [ ]
Install base system:[ ]
Install tasks: [ ]
Install boot loader:[ ]
Overall install:[ ]
Comments/Problems:
Description of the install, in prose, and any thoughts, comments
and ideas you had during the initial install.
--
Please make sure that the hardware-summary log file, and any other
installation logs that you think would be useful are attached to this
report. Please compress large files using gzip.
Once you have filled out this report, mail it to sub...@bugs.debian.org.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 8.0
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386, armel, armhf, powerpcspe
Kernel: Linux 3.16.0-4-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=fr_FR.utf8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
--
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/20150330224221.9377.42055.report...@graves.miradou.com
Bug#781549: installation-reports: PXE netboot i386 fails (path problem) - debian-installer jessie RC2
Package: installation-reports
Severity: important
Dear Maintainer,
*** Please consider answering these questions, where appropriate ***
* What led up to the situation?
Decided to try debian-installer RC2 to netboot old PC.
* What exactly did you do (or not do) that was effective (or
ineffective)?
Netboot failed - path problems inside installer - see below.
* What was the outcome of this action?
After I did two workarounds (changes to the installer) I got it booting - see
below.
* What outcome did you expect instead?
PXE netboot should work out of the box.
-- Package-specific info:
Boot method: PXE netboot
Image version:
http://ftp.nl.debian.org/debian/dists/testing/main/installer-i386/current/images/netboot/netboot.tar.gx
(26-03-15)
Date: 2015-03-30
Machine: Athlon XP 1700+ VIA m/b
Partitions: not installed - just booted the installer
Base System Installation Checklist:
[O] = OK, [E] = Error (please elaborate below), [ ] = didn't try it
Initial boot: [E]
Detect network card:[O]
Configure network: [ ]
Detect CD: [ ]
Load installer modules: [ ]
Clock/timezone setup: [ ]
User/password setup:[ ]
Detect hard drives: [ ]
Partition hard drives: [ ]
Install base system:[ ]
Install tasks: [ ]
Install boot loader:[ ]
Overall install:[E]
Comments/Problems:
---
PXE netboot i386 PC (risken) with VIA VT6102 (Rhine-II) NIC from
Debian Wheezy amd64 server (groda).
Unpacked netboot.tar.gz into /srv/tftp/ on groda.
TFTP logs from groda included below - two paths problems found.
DHCP server entry:
host risken {
hardware ethernet 00:0d:87:60:dc:93;
fixed-address risken.boquist.net;
next-server groda.boquist.net;
filename debian-installer/i386/pxelinux.0;
}
---
First boot failed - Failed to load ldlinux.c32
(shown on client console)
Mar 30 22:48:28 groda in.tftpd[27498]: RRQ from 192.168.1.43 filename
debian-installer/i386/pxelinux.0
Mar 30 22:48:28 groda in.tftpd[27498]: tftp: client does not accept options
Mar 30 22:48:28 groda in.tftpd[27499]: RRQ from 192.168.1.43 filename
debian-installer/i386/pxelinux.0
Mar 30 22:48:28 groda in.tftpd[27500]: RRQ from 192.168.1.43 filename
debian-installer/i386/ldlinux.c32
Mar 30 22:48:28 groda in.tftpd[27500]: sending NAK (1, File not found) to
192.168.1.43
Mar 30 22:48:28 groda in.tftpd[27501]: RRQ from 192.168.1.43 filename
debian-installer/i386//boot/isolinux/ldlinux.c32
Mar 30 22:48:28 groda in.tftpd[27501]: sending NAK (1, File not found) to
192.168.1.43
Mar 30 22:48:28 groda in.tftpd[27502]: RRQ from 192.168.1.43 filename
debian-installer/i386//isolinux/ldlinux.c32
Mar 30 22:48:28 groda in.tftpd[27502]: sending NAK (1, File not found) to
192.168.1.43
Mar 30 22:48:28 groda in.tftpd[27503]: RRQ from 192.168.1.43 filename
debian-installer/i386//boot/syslinux/ldlinux.c32
Mar 30 22:48:28 groda in.tftpd[27503]: sending NAK (1, File not found) to
192.168.1.43
Mar 30 22:48:28 groda in.tftpd[27504]: RRQ from 192.168.1.43 filename
debian-installer/i386//syslinux/ldlinux.c32
Mar 30 22:48:28 groda in.tftpd[27504]: sending NAK (1, File not found) to
192.168.1.43
Mar 30 22:48:28 groda in.tftpd[27505]: RRQ from 192.168.1.43 filename
debian-installer/i386//ldlinux.c32
Mar 30 22:48:28 groda in.tftpd[27505]: sending NAK (1, File not found) to
192.168.1.43
groda# find debian-installer -name ldlinux.c32
debian-installer/i386/boot-screens/ldlinux.c32
workaround:
groda# cd debian-installer/i386/
groda# ln -s boot-screens/ldlinux.c32
---
Second boot failed - Failed to load COM32 file
debian-installer/i386/boot-screens/vesamenu.c32
(shown on client console)
Mar 30 22:56:33 groda in.tftpd[27790]: RRQ from 192.168.1.43 filename
debian-installer/i386/pxelinux.0
Mar 30 22:56:33 groda in.tftpd[27790]: tftp: client does not accept options
Mar 30 22:56:33 groda in.tftpd[27791]: RRQ from 192.168.1.43 filename
debian-installer/i386/pxelinux.0
Mar 30 22:56:33 groda in.tftpd[27792]: RRQ from 192.168.1.43 filename
debian-installer/i386/ldlinux.c32
Mar 30 22:56:33 groda in.tftpd[27793]: RRQ from 192.168.1.43 filename
debian-installer/i386/pxelinux.cfg/01-00-0d-87-60-dc-93
Mar 30 22:56:33 groda in.tftpd[27793]: sending NAK (1, File not found) to
192.168.1.43
Mar 30 22:56:33 groda in.tftpd[27794]: RRQ from 192.168.1.43 filename
debian-installer/i386/pxelinux.cfg/C0A8012B
Mar 30 22:56:33 groda in.tftpd[27794]: sending NAK (1, File not found) to
192.168.1.43
Mar 30 22:56:33 groda in.tftpd[27795]: RRQ from 192.168.1.43 filename
debian-installer/i386/pxelinux.cfg/C0A8012
Mar 30 22:56:33 groda in.tftpd[27795]: sending NAK (1, File not found) to
192.168.1.43
Mar 30 22:56:33 groda
Re: bastardizing packages or stepping down
Hi. I'm sorry it has taken a while to write back to you. I asked how the TC could help and was confused when I read your message. I provided a couple of options how we might be able to help and you neither selected one of my options nor provided your own. So, I wasn't sure what you were looking for. I've done my best and I hope that this helps you understand what's going on. I've decided to give my analysis of someone on the release team might reject your unblock request.This may not be the actual reason the release team (RT) acted as they did. I've never been on the RT, but I have taken on a similar role for other much smaller projects. I got input from other members of the TC in preparing this response, but these words are my own and this definitely doesn't represent a statement From the TC as a whole. In doing that I've read #771208 but not the other bugs. If I were on the RT and processing your unblock, I'd read the full unblock bug, and read enough of the referenced bugs to understand briefly the technical issue, but perhaps not enough to understand why someone thought they were important. This is an issue where I think reasonable people might disagree. I don't actually know which decision I would take were I on the RT; it would depend on the tradeoffs I'll discuss below. I appreciate that busybox-static is important to you. It's something you've worked on a lot, it's something you use and depend on. However, busybox-static is not as important to the project as a whole as busybox. Busybox-static is one of several debugging/recovery tools. We also have live DVDs, bootable media, alternate chroots/volumes to boot from. We could release with an entirely broken busybox-static. we cannot release with a busybox that is broken in a manner that breaks D-i, initramfs, etc. You claim that the changes do not affect the resulting binaries. Based on your analysis, you claim that if the busybox source package builds at all, your changes cannot affect whether the main busybox binaries function. However, the RT is likely to care as much or more about whether something builds as whether there is some bug introduced into the binary. Having core packages that build all the time, whenever you make a change to them, whenever you make an NMU, whenever you make a security fix is one of the highest priorities of doing release engineering for a large project. During the freeze, if I had to pick between a busybox that build all the time but sometimes produced a broken busybox-static and a busybox that sometimes failed to build because it could not produce a busybox-static I'd pick the potentially broken busybox-static. being unable to build a package when you need to make some change blocks forward progress. It can also cascade and affect forward progress on other packages. Changing the conditions under which a package will successfully build frequently has unexpected consequences. We might find people trying to build d-i in their own build environments face breakage because their libc is not up-to-date. That again can break things for people doing various kind of automated product builds and automated testing based on what's supposed to be a frozen release. I might be willing to accept the change if I were convinced that it would not break things for Debian. However, according to your mail you were running into cases where the buildds were not up-to-date. There is of course a counter argument, and it's the argument that I'd use if I were to decide to accept the change. It's frustrated to have a build that sometimes produces valid output and sometimes doesn't. Every few times when we do a security upload we'd run into a case where busybox-static is broken. And so we'd have to do yet another bin-nmu to fix it. That's frustrating in its own way. You claimed that the patch was easy to review, and that it obviously didn't change the binaries for busybox. I did a review of the unblock, and i didn't find the patch particularly easy to review, nor was I able to prove without doing a bit more work that it failed to affect the binaries for busybox. The RT has a bunch of stuff on their plate. If an unblock is not obvious and the decision is questionable it's more likely to be rejected. The mail you wrote to the TC, particularly the technical summary was really well done. If the unblock hedar looked a lot like that mail, I would have been more likely to accept the change had I been making the decision. Here are areas that concerned me when reviewing the unblock: * You talk about how multiple iterations were required and how this breaks hurd. In general, I have found that these sort of build changes are very tricky to get right and do tend to have unexpected consequences. You let me know that it took you a while to get this one to a point where you believe it is right, and even that has broken one thing that you know of. You would be better off spending at least as much space
Processed: reassign 781439 to cdebconf-text-udeb
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: reassign 781439 cdebconf-text-udeb Bug #781439 [src:cdebconf-text-udeb] cdebconf-text-udeb: should allow text shortcuts Warning: Unknown package 'src:cdebconf-text-udeb' Bug reassigned from package 'src:cdebconf-text-udeb' to 'cdebconf-text-udeb'. No longer marked as found in versions cdebconf-text-udeb/0.192. Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #781439 to the same values previously set thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 781439: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=781439 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.c.142773206218062.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#781531: debian-installer: allow autodefrag mount option for btrfs filesystem
Package: debian-installer Version: jessie-DI-rc2-amd64-i386-netinst Severity: wishlist Dear Maintainer, During the partition disks phase it is possible to specify a filesystem type of btrfs. It is very useful to use the autodefrag option with btrfs filesystems, but it is not a listed option among the available mount options in the installer, and you can't add your own options. As a consequence I went into a shell and remounted /target to include this option before going further. I also needed to go into a shell to hand edit the target's /etc/fstab prior to finishing the installation. It would be nice to either allow your own options, or present autodefrag as an option for btrfs. -- System Information: Debian Release: 8.0 APT prefers testing-updates APT policy: (500, 'testing-updates'), (500, 'testing') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 3.16.0-4-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) -- 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/20150330160929.23097.27666.report...@cantor.americas.sgi.com
