Bug#476902: debian-installer: Progress bar resizing NTFS partitions doesn't function
On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 6:05 AM, Jérémy Bobbio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > reassign 476902 partman-partitioning > forcemerge 402956 476902 > thanks > > The issue is already known. Let's hope someone we'll find enough time > to tackle this… Ah, okay. I didn't realize that debian-installer bugs were now filed against the appropriate udeb. Thanks!
Bug#476902: debian-installer: Progress bar resizing NTFS partitions doesn't function
Package: debian-installer Version: 20080419-19:02 Severity: normal I installed Debian using the win32 installer from goodbye-microsoft.com, and while resizing my NTFS partition the progress bar stayed at 0% until the operation was completed. This is especially problematic because immediately before, the installer warns that resizing partitions may take a very long time, and it does :-). Cheers. -- System Information: Debian Release: lenny/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.24-1-686 (SMP w/1 CPU core) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#468573: Default sources.list should use release names, not 'stable'
On 2/29/08, Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It would be nice if you'd check your facts before filing a BR. > The Debian Installer has been setting codenames in sources.list files since > Etch. Sarge was the last release where the installer used suites. My sincerest apologies. I was led to believe that that wasn't the case, but I obviously should have checked for myself. Sorry for the noise. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#468573: Default sources.list should use release names, not 'stable'
Package: debian-installer Version: 20070308etch2 Severity: normal It's almost a daily occurence on #debian for people to come in with broken systems because the installer has given them a sources.list with 'stable', and they've unintentionally upgraded partially to a new release by doing a simple packaging operation. It seems that it would be better for the installer to use explicit release names instead of 'stable'. Of course, the fact that people are having trouble with something doesn't necessarily mean that it's wrong. Even so, I can't see the upside of using 'stable'. An oldstable->stable upgrade is not simple enough that it makes sense for it to happen as a natural result of using the packaging tools as opposed to because the admin has made a deliberate decision to upgrade. In the case of people who simply aren't aware of the idea of oldstable->stable upgrades, I think it makes more sense to leave their systems as the originally-installed release indefinitely than it does to let them partially upgrade (or do an attempt at an upgrade with dist-upgrade). I think the chance that they'll figure out that the apt output they're seeing means that they need to go to www.debian.org, read the release notes, and then follow them carefully in order to upgrade their system, is quite small. Cheers. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
