On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 12:56:06PM -0700, Brad Boyer wrote:
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 10:26:00PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 12:19:24AM -0700, Brad Boyer wrote:
The 20040707 image does seem to fix this specific problem, and it now
gets into the installer. It
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 09:59:46PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 12:56:06PM -0700, Brad Boyer wrote:
It seems bad to me for one of these scripts to be so sure that it can
load a particular module, when the rest of the install is pretty
careful to allow a user in
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 07:00:21PM +0200, Helge Kreutzmann wrote:
Hello,
for helping d-i I got an 43p-140 (IBM RS/6000). Since there are no
specific install instructions on
http://d-i.alioth.debian.org/manual/en.powerpc/index.html
Cool, ...
I used
Hey, I think I might have found a workaround. I read a message under
Bug#257168 with Message-ID:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
which gave me an idea.
Running the 10 Jul image of sarge with expert 26 I
waited until the hardware detection (which didn't find my HD) was
complete then ran modprobe scsi_mod
There are three (seemingly) different sets of daily ISOs at
http://cdimage.debian.org/pub/cdimage-testing/daily/powerpc/20040710/
http://cdimage.debian.org/pub/cdimage-testing/sarge_d-
i/powerpc/20040710/
http://cdimage.debian.org/pub/cdimage-testing/sid_d-i/powerpc/20040710/
Can anybody explain
Osamu Aoki wrote:
Hmmm... Are you going to document this new feature in README.Debian?
A bit awkward if one upgrades system and reads some other documentation
on hotplug later documenting new setup.
Yes, you're right. I should put it in NEWS.Debian. Maybe in
README.Debian too. Thanks for
Your message dated Sun, 11 Jul 2004 04:17:06 -0400
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#258664: fixed in discover1 1.6.2
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Your message dated Sun, 11 Jul 2004 04:17:06 -0400
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#257649: fixed in discover1 1.6.2
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Your message dated Sun, 11 Jul 2004 04:17:06 -0400
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#257396: fixed in discover1 1.6.2
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Your message dated Sun, 11 Jul 2004 04:17:06 -0400
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#255758: fixed in discover1 1.6.2
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Your message dated Sun, 11 Jul 2004 04:17:06 -0400
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#166675: fixed in discover1 1.6.2
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Your message dated Sun, 11 Jul 2004 04:17:06 -0400
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#256174: fixed in discover1 1.6.2
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Your message dated Sun, 11 Jul 2004 04:17:06 -0400
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#256371: fixed in discover1 1.6.2
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Your message dated Sun, 11 Jul 2004 04:17:06 -0400
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#256710: fixed in discover1 1.6.2
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Your message dated Sun, 11 Jul 2004 04:17:06 -0400
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#258305: fixed in discover1 1.6.2
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Your message dated Sun, 11 Jul 2004 04:17:06 -0400
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#258315: fixed in discover1 1.6.2
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Your message dated Sun, 11 Jul 2004 04:17:06 -0400
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#256989: fixed in discover1 1.6.2
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
On Sun, 11 Jul 2004, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 09:59:46PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 12:56:06PM -0700, Brad Boyer wrote:
It seems bad to me for one of these scripts to be so sure that it can
load a particular module, when the rest of the
discover1_1.6.2_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
discover1_1.6.2.dsc
discover1_1.6.2.tar.gz
discover1_1.6.2_i386.deb
libdiscover1_1.6.2_i386.deb
libdiscover1-dev_1.6.2_i386.deb
libdiscover1-pic_1.6.2_i386.deb
discover1-udeb_1.6.2_i386.udeb
Accepted:
discover1-udeb_1.6.2_i386.udeb
to pool/main/d/discover1/discover1-udeb_1.6.2_i386.udeb
discover1_1.6.2.dsc
to pool/main/d/discover1/discover1_1.6.2.dsc
discover1_1.6.2.tar.gz
to pool/main/d/discover1/discover1_1.6.2.tar.gz
discover1_1.6.2_i386.deb
to
discover1_1.6.2.1_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
discover1_1.6.2.1.dsc
discover1_1.6.2.1.tar.gz
discover1_1.6.2.1_i386.deb
libdiscover1_1.6.2.1_i386.deb
libdiscover1-dev_1.6.2.1_i386.deb
libdiscover1-pic_1.6.2.1_i386.deb
Accepted:
discover1-udeb_1.6.2.1_i386.udeb
to pool/main/d/discover1/discover1-udeb_1.6.2.1_i386.udeb
discover1_1.6.2.1.dsc
to pool/main/d/discover1/discover1_1.6.2.1.dsc
discover1_1.6.2.1.tar.gz
to pool/main/d/discover1/discover1_1.6.2.1.tar.gz
discover1_1.6.2.1_i386.deb
to
Package: discover1
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch l10n
Please use the attached updated Danish program translation (po/da.po).
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (600, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.7
Locale:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 11 July 2004 10:34, Rick Thomas wrote:
There are three (seemingly) different sets of daily ISOs at
http://cdimage.debian.org/pub/cdimage-testing/daily/powerpc/20040710/
http://cdimage.debian.org/pub/cdimage-testing/sarge_d-
Le dimanche 11 juillet 2004, Rick Thomas écrit :
There are three (seemingly) different sets of daily ISOs at
[...]
Can anybody explain what the difference is? And which one should I
use for testing?
http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/builds
Regards
Nicolas
--
--
To
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 02:02:25PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 11 July 2004 10:34, Rick Thomas wrote:
There are three (seemingly) different sets of daily ISOs at
http://cdimage.debian.org/pub/cdimage-testing/daily/powerpc/20040710/
Your message dated Sun, 11 Jul 2004 14:48:09 +0200
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Closing report of successful PXE/netboot installation
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the
I apologize for the long delay. Is there a way to run the installer in a
'dryrun' mode (analagous to make -n)? I don't have a particular desire to
clobber my current installation.
thanks,
-Nathan.
- Original Message -
From: Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Nathan Tallent [EMAIL
* Nathan Tallent [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-07-10 10:14]:
I apologize for the long delay. Is there a way to run the installer in a
'dryrun' mode (analagous to make -n)? I don't have a particular desire to
Not really... you could try installing to the swap partition (i.e.
using your existing swap
Dear Webmaster,
In one easy step, Betspace's user-friendly, hassle-free system allows you to earn thousands of dollars a month.
All you need to do is reply this email with the desired option:
1 - Standard size banner
2 Pop under
3 Text link
For example, if you desire pop under,
main-menu_0.071_s390.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
main-menu_0.071.dsc
main-menu_0.071.tar.gz
main-menu_0.071_s390.udeb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?
Accepted:
main-menu_0.071.dsc
to pool/main/m/main-menu/main-menu_0.071.dsc
main-menu_0.071.tar.gz
to pool/main/m/main-menu/main-menu_0.071.tar.gz
main-menu_0.071_s390.udeb
to pool/main/m/main-menu/main-menu_0.071_s390.udeb
Announcing to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thank you for your contribution to
--Boundary-00=_fFV8ADI/IwP6yB/
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
The first time that dpkg-buildpackage is executed the compilation fails:
--
debian/rules build
AUTOMAKE=automake-1.8 ACLOCAL=aclocal-1.8 \
autoreconf -i
Hallo Sven,
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 09:30:02AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 07:00:21PM +0200, Helge Kreutzmann wrote:
Hello,
for helping d-i I got an 43p-140 (IBM RS/6000). Since there are no
specific install instructions on
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 11:39:59AM -0300, Rafael vila de Espndola wrote:
The first time that dpkg-buildpackage is executed the compilation fails:
No, you try to compile out of the repository which is never supposed to
work without additional work.
Bastian
--
We Klingons believe as you do --
Joey Hess wrote:
I've noticed the dell problems as well.
I investigated this because you alerted me about it on IRC :)
I suppose there's not a way to somehow autodetect these laptops by
something else and change the resource range only there?
The brand and model of the computer is included
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 02:02:25PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
The daily and sarge_d-i images are identical.
The daily symlink was recently switched back to point to sid_d-i.
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 05:11:39PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 11:39:59AM -0300, Rafael Ávila de Espíndola wrote:
The first time that dpkg-buildpackage is executed the compilation fails:
No, you try to compile out of the repository which is never supposed to
work
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 09:30:02AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 07:00:21PM +0200, Helge Kreutzmann wrote:
Is it possible, to boot d-i on this prep-machine? And if so, which
would be the proper command?
Ah, this is a PReP machine, very fine then. It won't naturally not
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 03:05:03PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Nathan Tallent [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-07-10 10:14]:
I apologize for the long delay. Is there a way to run the installer in a
'dryrun' mode (analagous to make -n)? I don't have a particular desire to
Not really... you
David Creelman wrote:
I've been trying to install Debian using the latest available boot
floppies. It fails on the partition manager and there seems to be no way
to recover from the error.
We really need more information than it fails to help you.
However, I suggest that you try the daily
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
It seems that i386 2.4.24-speekup is no longer in the repository. Should d-i
be updated to 2.4.26?
Rafael
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFA8WW2LlrfGJ8JUHwRArIbAJwOpLETr9kQnLueY6oSJ3aYOi+D6ACgtnt2
Martin Godisch wrote:
The Debian Installer beta4 doesn't activate PCMCIA support on my
notebook. My network card is a PCMCIA card, hence the whole
(network-based) installation fails. There was Debian installed there
once before, meaning there must be a way it works.
The last page on vt4
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
# Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.7.95.1
reassign 255263 discover1-data
Bug#255263: bug report
Bug reassigned from package `installation-reports' to `discover1-data'.
End of message, stopping processing here.
Please
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
# Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.7.95.1
tags 255263 d-i
Bug#255263: bug report
There were no tags set.
Tags added: d-i
End of message, stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug
Rafael Ávila de Espíndola wrote:
It seems that i386 2.4.24-speekup is no longer in the repository. Should d-i
be updated to 2.4.26?
Thanks for the reminder, done. If you could test today's daily builds,
which will use the new kernel, that would be great.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
countrychooser_1.00_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
countrychooser_1.00.dsc
countrychooser_1.00.tar.gz
countrychooser_1.00_all.udeb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
Package: discover1
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
Sorry Josh, but your update went into unstable at the same time as
bubulle gave me newer files.
Attached both.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Your message dated Sun, 11 Jul 2004 19:06:49 +0200
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#258715: debian-installer: fails to enable PCMCIA support
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is
sorry, reportbug just let me send one attachment.
Attached is the debconf update.
--
Jordi Mallach Pérez -- Debian developer http://www.debian.org/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sindominio.net/
GnuPG public key information available at http://oskuro.net/~jordi/
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 04:40:22PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 09:30:02AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
http://people.debian.org/~luther/debian-installer/daily-powerpc-built/daily/powerpc/netboot/vmlinuz-prep.initrd
Isn't that directory obsolete? You moved it here:
Hi,
I'm planning to work on a patch which generates the locale for the
selected language at the prebaseconfig stage. There are some pretty
good reasons to do so:
* As a critical step for i18n, the locale generation should not be part
of a kludgy script like termwrap. It deserves a
Package: installation-reports
Version: 20040710
Severity: important
INSTALL REPORT
Debian-installer-version: Netboot daily build 20040710
Date: July 11, 2004
Method: PXE boot, DEBCONF_PRIORITY=medium, testing
Machine: Toshiba Satellite A40
Processor: Mobile Intel Pentium 4, 2.80 GHz
Memory: 512
Recai Oktas :
* By moving the locale generation code to prebaseconfig, one of the
central duties of termwrap will be transfered to this package, so we
will be able to simplify the termwrap. According to my tests, I can
safely state that, termwrap would not be needed at all for
On Saturday 10 July 2004 19:23, Branden Robinson wrote:
Doesn't d-i install mdetect to autodetect the mouse?
D-i does install both read-edid and mdetect during first stage installation.
However, they are both _uninstalled_ somewhere during base-config.
(See also #250422)
I have noticed myself
linux-kernel-di-powerpc-2.6_0.65_powerpc.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
linux-kernel-di-powerpc-2.6_0.65.dsc
linux-kernel-di-powerpc-2.6_0.65.tar.gz
kernel-image-2.6.7-powerpc-di_0.65_powerpc.udeb
nic-modules-2.6.7-powerpc-di_0.65_powerpc.udeb
affs-modules-2.6.7-power3-di_0.65_powerpc.udeb
to
pool/main/l/linux-kernel-di-powerpc-2.6/affs-modules-2.6.7-power3-di_0.65_powerpc.udeb
affs-modules-2.6.7-power4-di_0.65_powerpc.udeb
to
pool/main/l/linux-kernel-di-powerpc-2.6/affs-modules-2.6.7-power4-di_0.65_powerpc.udeb
Package: installation-reports
Debian-installer-version: 2004-07-10 (sarge net) from cdimage.debian.org
uname -a: Linux kev 2.4.26-1-386 #2 Sat May 1 16:31:24 EST 2004 i586 unknown
Date: 2004-07-11 14:00 EST
Method: sarge-i386-netinst.iso off of CD-ROM, never got to network install
Machine:
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
tags 250422 + wontfix
Bug#250422: Base-config: package installation inconsistency
There were no tags set.
Tags added: wontfix
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
The file 99reboot seems to be missing:
install -m0644 inittab.install
debian/prebaseconfig/usr/share/prebaseconfig/inittab
set -e ; for file in \
10bind-mount \
20final-message \
50config-target-network \
51framebuffer-module-linux-i386 \
Frans Pop wrote:
On Saturday 10 July 2004 19:23, Branden Robinson wrote:
Doesn't d-i install mdetect to autodetect the mouse?
D-i does install both read-edid and mdetect during first stage installation.
However, they are both _uninstalled_ somewhere during base-config.
(See also #250422)
Package: base-config
Version:
Priority: wishlist
Tags: l10n
Attached is an update for base-config's debian/po/es.po file. Thanks for
including this...
Regards
Javier
PS: I would include this myself but CVS access to base-config's repository
at Alioth returns:
cvs server: Updating .
cvs
Package: installation-reports
Debian-installer-version:
http://people.debian.org/~joeyh/d-i/images/daily/netboot/ July 11, 2004
uname -a: Linux huxley 2.4.26-1-386 #2 Sat May 1 16:31:24 EST 2004 i686
unknown
Date: July 11, 2004
Method: netboot (over PXE) using local sid/unstable mirror (http)
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
# Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.7.95.1
reassign 258852 netcfg
Bug#258852: installation report
Bug reassigned from package `installation-reports' to `netcfg'.
tags 258852 d-i
Bug#258852: installation report
There were no
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
# Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.7.95.1
tags 258861 d-i
Bug#258861: sarge installation report
There were no tags set.
Tags added: d-i
reassign 258861 mdcfg
Bug#258861: sarge installation report
Bug reassigned from
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
reassign 258848 libgcrypt7
Bug#258848: Sid dependency problem
Bug reassigned from package `installation-reports' to `libgcrypt7'.
severity libgcrypt7 grave
Unknown command or malformed arguments to command.
tag libgcrypt7 d-i
Unknown command or
Alex Malinovich wrote:
Install of the base system failed due to a dependency problem with
libgcrypt7. libgcrypt7 (1.1.90-3) depends on libpth2 which is not part
of the base install. Editing /usr/lib/debootstrap/scripts/sid and adding
libpth2 to 'base' fixed the issue.
Apparently libgcrypt7
Package: installation-reports
Debian-installer-version: Daily Build 7-9-2004
Date: 7-9-2004
Method: Installed from daily built CD
Machine: HP Pavilion a220n
Processor: Athlon xp 2600+
Memory: 512
Root Device: ?
Base System Installation Checklist:
Initial boot worked:[ o]
Configure network HW:
Package: main-menu
Severity: normal
Tags: d-i
Recently the way d-i does an exit/reboot was changed, so that menu items
may pass a special code 11 or 12 to main-menu, which then exits with
that same code, and causes rootskel to halt or reboot the system. This
change has made d-i less robust.
It
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Em Sunday 11 July 2004 13:40, Christian Perrier escreveu:
Quoting Joey Hess ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Rafael Ávila de Espíndola wrote:
It seems that i386 2.4.24-speekup is no longer in the repository.
Should d-i be updated to 2.4.26?
Thanks
On Sunday 11 July 2004 22:34, Joey Hess wrote:
The 2.6 kernel recently changed to use 2.6.7. The kernel udebs for that
kernel are only present in unstable. If you tell d-i to install testing,
then it will also take udebs from testing, which means it will find no
kernel modules to load. This is
Package: installation-reports
Debian-installer-version:
http://cdimage.debian.org/pub/cdimage-testing/daily/i386/20040711/sarge-i386-netinst.iso
uname -a: Linux sputnik 2.4.26-1-386 #2 Sat May 1 16:31:24 EST 2004 i686
unknown
Date: mon 12 July, 0.55 a.m
Method: I downloaded the netinst cd image
During the installation a log is created by the partitioning program.
It is available on the ramdisk as /var/log/partman.
Could you please run the installation again up to the point where the
partitioning program shows the incorrect partition summary of your drive and
send /var/log/partman to
discover1_1.6.2.2_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
discover1_1.6.2.2.dsc
discover1_1.6.2.2.tar.gz
discover1_1.6.2.2_i386.deb
libdiscover1_1.6.2.2_i386.deb
libdiscover1-dev_1.6.2.2_i386.deb
libdiscover1-pic_1.6.2.2_i386.deb
Accepted:
discover1-udeb_1.6.2.2_i386.udeb
to pool/main/d/discover1/discover1-udeb_1.6.2.2_i386.udeb
discover1_1.6.2.2.dsc
to pool/main/d/discover1/discover1_1.6.2.2.dsc
discover1_1.6.2.2.tar.gz
to pool/main/d/discover1/discover1_1.6.2.2.tar.gz
discover1_1.6.2.2_i386.deb
to
Package: installation-reports
INSTALL REPORT
Debian-installer-version:
http://cdimage.debian.org/pub/cdimage-testing/daily/powerpc/20040711/sarge-powerpc-businesscard.iso
uname -a: didn't get far enough to get this...
Date: early AM EDT Saturday, July 12, 2004
Method: How did you install
Package: installation-reports
INSTALL REPORT
Debian-installer-version:
http://cdimage.debian.org/pub/cdimage-testing/daily/powerpc/20040711/sarge-powerpc-businesscard.iso
uname -a: didn't get far enough to get this...
Date: early AM EDT Saturday, July 12, 2004
Method: How did you install
Package: installation-reports
INSTALL REPORT
Debian-installer-version: 11/7/04 -sid_d-i mirror.kernel.org
uname Linux mylaptopdeb 2.6.6-1-386 #1 Wed May 12 13:19:06 EST 2004 i686
GNU/Linux
Date: 11/7/14:00
Method: How did you install? expert What did you boot off? cdrom If
network
78 matches
Mail list logo
