OT: console-setup (Re: Bug#796603: closed by Anton Zinoviev <zinov...@debian.org> (Bug#796603: fixed in console-setup 1.138))

[Adam Wilson]

On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 12:55:41 +0300
Anton Zinoviev  wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 03:22:42PM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> > 
> > Yet another one would be to have setupcon itself detect the
> > existence of the cached scripts.  
> 
> The only reason there are cached scripts is that people are
> complaining that console-setup is slow at boot.  The cached scripts
> contain the mininum configuration sufficient to configure the
> console.  If we run setupcon, we don't need cached scripts.

Is console-setup the thing which initialises the console fonts and
resolution? Is its slowness the reason why, on boot, it takes a few
seconds for the text-mode screen to transition to a virtual terminal,
which then has its font changed a few seconds later to the more
readable Debian default?

Why is console-setup so slow?


pgpHQ8w2SUn3T.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: HELPMY AT THE BIGINING dEBIAN ASCS DEBIAN : ? PASSWORD ? WAT IS IT?

[Adam Wilson]

On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 08:46:05 + Rui Rodrigues
 wrote:

> 

That nothingness is the problem.

Rephrase the question or begone.

Re: Reiser4-enabled Debian Unstable (Sid) netboot iso

[Adam Wilson]

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:00:43 -0500
"Lennart Sorensen" <lsore...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 07:01:58PM +0300, Adam Wilson wrote:
> > Why was Reiser3 phased out? It wasn't *grossly* unstable or
> > anything, and despite lack of maintenance it was still a good
> > little filesystem that could have stayed for longer.  
> 
> I had plenty of silent data corruptions with reiser 3.6 and will never
> trust anything with that name on it with my data ever again.
> 
> It was NOT a good filesystem and was that unstable.
> 

My experience differed. I apologise.

Re: Reiser4-enabled Debian Unstable (Sid) netboot iso

[Adam Wilson]

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 07:22:21 +0100
Cyril Brulebois <k...@debian.org> wrote:

> Adam Wilson <mox...@riseup.net> (2016-01-11):
> > This is somewhat off-topic, but why was ReiserFS support removed
> > from d-i? I am a big fan of Reiser3 personally, but I use XFS now.  
> 
> In linux's changelog:
> | linux (3.10.1-1) unstable; urgency=low
> | […]
> |   * udeb: Remove obsolete and unsupported drivers and filesystems
> | - Remove ppa from scsi-modules
> | - Remove floppy-modules, irda-modules, parport-modules,
> plip-modules, |   qnx4-modules, reiserfs-modules, ufs-modules
> | […]
> |  -- Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk>  Tue, 16 Jul 2013 02:06:53
> +0100
> 
> It seems it was already being phased out in d-i a few years before
> that: https://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/News/2010/20101030

That is interesting. I distinctly remember the 'ReiserFS' filesystem
option being present in the Wheezy d-i. The description went something
like this: 'Journaling filesystem created by Hans Reiser' or something
along those lines. Your research has revealed otherwise- but I have my
suspicions. I'm sure I didn't make up that experience.

Perhaps I somehow inadvertently customised my copy of d-i or did an
advanced install or something, but I doubt it. I was even more inept a
year ago than I am now.

Why was Reiser3 phased out? It wasn't *grossly* unstable or anything,
and despite lack of maintenance it was still a good little filesystem
that could have stayed for longer.

And why UFS? It may be obsolete, but I should think it would be
relatively stable. Surely a filesystem should only be removed when it
is actually a steaming wreck, not just when the devs don't like it
anymore.

Re: Debian Installer Stretch Alpha 5 release

[Adam Wilson]

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 16:39:45 +0100
Samuel Thibault <sthiba...@debian.org> wrote:

> Adam Wilson, on Mon 11 Jan 2016 18:32:53 +0300, wrote:
> > This
> > (http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/ch-compat.en.html#s-arches)
> > is somewhat misleading then, as it seems to give the impression
> > that Debian's i386 will run on actual 386es, which is not the case.
> > Shouldn't this be clarified?  
> 
> It needs to be updated, yes. Patches against installation-guide
> welcome :)

I have no idea how to contribute changes. How does one get started with
making changes to Debian packages?

Re: Debian Installer Stretch Alpha 5 release

[Adam Wilson]

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 10:48:30 +
Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk> wrote:

> On Mon, 2016-01-11 at 07:41 +0300, Adam Wilson wrote:
> > On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 23:39:35 +0100
> > Cyril Brulebois <k...@debian.org> wrote:
> >   
> > > The Debian Installer team[1] is pleased to announce the fifth alpha
> > > release of the installer for Debian 9 "Stretch".
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Important change in this release of the installer
> > > =
> > > 
> > >  * The i386 architecture now requires 686-class processors:
> > >    https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2015/09/msg00589.html  
> > 
> > Why not just call it i686 then, in the Arch style?  
> 
> Debian architecture names identify ABIs, not hardware requirements.
> We've progressively raised the minimum processor requirement for i386
> over the last 10 years or so.
> 
> Ben.
> 

This (http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/ch-compat.en.html#s-arches)
is somewhat misleading then, as it seems to give the impression that Debian's
i386 will run on actual 386es, which is not the case. Shouldn't this be
clarified?

Re: Reiser4-enabled Debian Unstable (Sid) netboot iso

[Adam Wilson]

On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 00:11:27 -0800
Jose R R  wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 2:19 AM, Jose R R  wrote:
> > Niltze, all-
> >
> > I have been building iterations of Debian-Installer (d-i) enhanced
> > with Reiser4 4.0.1 kernel, disk and filesystem utilities. Thus far I
> > have used a local build on Debian Sid of VirtualBox 5.0.10 environment
> > to test multiple Reiser4 installations.
> >
> > For flexibility, especially if you are testing in a VM, the following
> > d-i options may help:
> >
> > -Network-console: continue installation remotely using SSH
> > -Openssh-client-udeb: secure shell client for the Debian installer
> >
> > Now:
> >
> > d-i offers three(3) choices:
> >
> > Jessie (stable)
> > Stretch (testing)
> > Sid (unstable)
> >
> > I have verified that *all* can be installed from my custom Reiser4
> > d-i; Nevertheless Jessie (stable) needs access to testing and/or
> > unstable repositories added at /etc/apt/sources.list in order to
> > fulfill dependencies of the unstable kernel in my d-i. Jessie (stable)
> > also needs to have newer Reiser4 4.0.1 packages because d-i downloads
> > the older (stable) version. I have covered *all* of Jessie conditions
> > by building newer unstable versions of its requirements. The downside
> > of it is that a user needs to manually intervene at the shell,
> > possibly at the expert level.  
> 
> Important note for Jessie:
> Opening a shell in the installer environment prior to d-i menu
> suggesting to install GRUB, enter:
> 
> chroot /target
> 
> Modify /etc/initramfs-tools/modules file by adding directives
> 
> crc32c_intel
> reiser4
> 
> at the end of the file and saving the modifications,
> 
>  And *prior* to installing the Reiser4 -enabled kernel make sure to
> replace the older reiser4progs 1.0.9 with the newer reiser4progs
> 1.1.0-1.1 -- which may be downloaded from previously posted link,
> i.e.:
> 
> http://metztli.it/readOnlyEphemeral/reiser4progs-4.0.1.tar
> 
> These last utilites will require download access to Stretch or Sid (Unstable)
> for instance adding a line:
> deb http://httpredir.debian.org/debian sid main non-free contrib
> 
> in /etc/apt/sources.list and performing apt-get update
> 
> to fulfill dependencies needed in Jessie:
> 
> libncurses5
> libncursesw5
> libreadline5
> libtinfo5
> 
> The above is necessary since when the Reiser4 -enabled kernel is
> installed, it will trigger initramfs-tools creation of
> initrd.img-xyz-amd64 which *should* have newer reiser4progs 1.1.0-1.1
> file utilities.
> 
> Optional: parted-reiser4_3.2-12 dependencies form Stretch and/or
> Sid(Unstable):
> 
> dmsetup
> libdevmapper1.02.1
> 
> >
> > As for Stretch and Sid, manual intervention is required only to modify
> > /etc/initramfs-tools/modules file by adding at the end:
> >
> > crc32c_intel
> > reiser4
> >
> > *before* installing the custom Reiser4 kernel, thus:
> > dpkg -i linux-image-4.3.0-1-amd64_4.3.3-5_amd64.deb
> >
> > so that initramfs can be appropriately updated *before* rebooting the
> > new Reiser4 installation.
> >
> > Note that GRUBX does not support booting from /boot Reiser4
> > filesystem; accordingly, a small partition must be provisioned for
> > booting into a Reiser4 -formatted root (/) partition. The d-i
> > partman-reiser4 will format Reiser4 partitions thus:
> >
> > mkfs.reiser4 -yo "create=reg40" 
> >
> > Additionally, user may want to provision a /tmp in a non-Reiser4
> > partition if the intention is to run MariaDB (MySQL) because -- at the
> > very least -- the DB will complain about /tmp issues if it is
> > formatted in Reiser4 --personal experience ;-)
> >
> > With the above said and warning that this is an alpha effort *without*
> > any explicit and/or implied guarantee that will be risk-free, here is
> > the current yield of of Reiser4 effort:
> >
> > Reiser4 -enabled Debian-Installer (d-i) netboot mini.iso renamed as:
> > http://metztli.it/readOnlyEphemeral//metztli_it-reiser4_d-i.iso
> >
> > Reiser4 -enabled kernel & modules.README_1st:
> > http://metztli.it/readOnlyEphemeral/linux-image-4.3.0-1-amd64_4.3.3-5_amd64.tar
> >
> > Reiser4 -enabled Debian GNU Parted packages (install at the end of
> > installation procedure); please note that those packages under
> > reiser4-parted_3.2-12/misc are optional):
> > http://metztli.it/readOnlyEphemeral/reiser4-parted_3.2-12.tar
> > (after untarring above referenced, install as)
> > cd reiser4-parted_3.2-12
> > dpkg -i parted_3.2-12_amd64.deb libparted2_3.2-12_amd64.deb
> >
> > Next resource is only needed if Jessie was installed. Package below
> > will replace the older Reiser4 file utilities:
> > http://metztli.it/readOnlyEphemeral/reiser4progs-4.0.1.tar
> >
> > Although I have created patches for most (or all ;-) of the above at
> > GitHub, I realize Debian Unstable (Sid) is a fast moving development
> > effort and within a couple of weeks the kernel referenced above will
> > be outdated and d-i will refuse to install.
> >
> > With 

Re: Debian Installer Stretch Alpha 5 release

[Adam Wilson]

On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 23:39:35 +0100
Cyril Brulebois  wrote:

> The Debian Installer team[1] is pleased to announce the fifth alpha
> release of the installer for Debian 9 "Stretch".
> 
> 
> Important change in this release of the installer
> =
> 
>  * The i386 architecture now requires 686-class processors:
>https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2015/09/msg00589.html

Why not just call it i686 then, in the Arch style?

Re: Going ahead with non-free-firmware

[Adam Wilson]

On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 19:27:22 -0500
Hendrik Boom  wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 09, 2016 at 10:36:53PM +0100, Philippe Cerfon wrote:
> > And btw:
> > Even if Debian doesn't want to do the non-open thing now or perhaps
> > generally doesn't want to allow people to opt-out of closed source
> > software while keeping other non-free software, then the name
> > non-free-firmware seems to break the current naming, doesn't it?
> > main
> > contrib
> > non-free
> > 
> > These all give the "license status" of their packages.
> > But non-free-firmware, would give license status and package type.
> > 
> > 
> > Oh and since this has been brought up by someone.
> > It seems better if packages wouldn't be in multiple suites.
> > That's also what I'd have intended with non-open, in other words, a
> > package that is in non-open is only there and not also in e.g.
> > non-open/firmware (and vice versa).  
> 
> Maybe closed-source would be clearer than non-open.
> 
> -- hendrik
> 

One thing that really bugs me about the Debian component system is failure to
differentiate between software (the functional component to any computer
system) and data (the non-functional component of a computer hardware/software
system). Example: I personally oppose non-free software and will not install or
run it. But I have no such qualms about non-free data- that is something for
the free *culture* movement, not the free *software* movement- of which Debian
is a project, and in which Debian should maintain its focus.

The inclusion of both non-free software and data in non-free means that in
order to use, say, AlienArena, which is free software but relies on non-free
data, one must enable both non-free and contrib! It is a pretty silly
situation- that in order to play a free game one must sacrifice their freedom
and enable the non-free component.

I would divide the Debian package repository as follows:

1. free-software
This would be for free software.

2. free-data
This would be for free data.

3. non-free-software
This would be for non-free software.

4. non-free-data
This would be for non-free data.

One could go even further and divide the non-free-software component into
components based on exactly *what* freedom is being withheld- so 'drm' (for
freedom 0), 'no-source' (for freedom 1), 'non-redistributable' (for freedom 2)
and 'non-modifiable' (for freedom 3) or something along those lines.

Of course, being a free software fanatic myself, I would prefer that Debian
just stopped encouraging the use of and distributing non-free software, but
since that isn't happening anytime soon, I see this as the best solution.

Re: Going ahead with non-free-firmware

[Adam Wilson]

On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 20:56:08 +0800
Paul Wise  wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 6:51 PM, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> 
> > I think there was consensus to introduce the non-free-firmware section
> > and move the non-free firmware blobs there.  I'm wondering what we need
> > to do next?  
> 
> I have a question about the implementation; will non-free firmware be
> in non-free and non-free-firmware or just non-free-firmware?
> 

If one wanted both non-free firmware and other non-free packages one would
simply enable both non-free and non-free-firmware. There need be no duplication
of package placement.

Re: Can not install linux - black screen

[Adam Wilson]

On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 21:38:21 +, Samuel Boczek 
wrote:

> Dear
> I have a terrible problem, I am unable to install Debian on my
> laptop, when I run GRUB and I choose install option I have only a
> black screen - do not even know what causes this problem.
> 
> Link to video presenting my issue:
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Byho0qAdzabmZEttTXdJUVRIR0k/view?usp=sharing
> @UP I tried to figure out what causes my problem.

Can you please tell us more about the problem at hand? What are your
BIOS settings? What medium are you booting from? What installer image
are you using? What is your laptop model and your hardware?