Re: installer location on mirrors

2012-05-21 Thread Joerg Jaspert
On 12853 March 1977, Joey Hess wrote: Joerg Jaspert wrote: I understand it right that doing it this way (ie. current symlink stays around), it won't break anything, so we can just do it for all suites?! It appears that debmirror will be broken, if it helps. :/ Urgs. I can't find anything

Re: installer location on mirrors

2012-05-21 Thread Bastian Blank
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 10:24:17PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote: I also take it we don't need/want the main/contrib/non-free in installer/, as our d-i will always be main/ only. What about firmware stuff? Bastian -- One does not thank logic. -- Sarek, Journey to Babel, stardate

Processed: reassign 673132 to debian-installer

2012-05-21 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: reassign 673132 debian-installer Bug #673132 [debian-installer-6.0-netboot-armel] debian-installer-6.0-netboot-armel: Include LED modules for LaCie devices Bug reassigned from package 'debian-installer-6.0-netboot-armel' to 'debian-installer'.

Re: Bug#673839: Building an udeb binary

2012-05-21 Thread Cyril Brulebois
Sebastien Bacher seb...@ubuntu.com (21/05/2012): Currently gtk is doing a second build pass with different configure option for its udeb flavor because libxrandr, libxcomposite and libxdamage don't have udebs. It would be nice if you could add an udeb to libxrandr so we could bring gtk into a

Re: Bug#673839: Building an udeb binary

2012-05-21 Thread Sebastien Bacher
Le 21/05/2012 21:17, Cyril Brulebois a écrit : That means more udebs, more stuff in the d-i image/initramfs. I'm not sure it's worth the trouble. Quite the contrary, in fact. It looks to me like a separate build is better as far as d-i is concerned. How costy would those udeb be? Those are

Bug#660093: clock-setup: Please support /etc/adjtime in addition to /etc/default

2012-05-21 Thread Roger Leigh
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:10:42AM +, Roger Leigh wrote: The following patch is also required to remove the use of /etc/default/hwclock given that we never used it for the UTC setting, since we moved it to /etc/adjtime directly. Thanks, Roger -- .''`. Roger Leigh : :' : Debian

Bug#673401: task-web-server: Please remove mod_perl and mod_python from task-web-server

2012-05-21 Thread Christian PERRIER
Quoting Stefan Fritsch (s...@sfritsch.de): Package: task-web-server Version: 3.09 Severity: normal mod_python is obsoleted by mod_wsgi and basically dead upstream (last commit to svn was 3 years ago). And mod_perl is IMNSHO not so popular anymore that it needs to be installed by

Bug#673365: marked as done (installation-report: dnet-common looks unnecessary for normal environment)

2012-05-21 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Mon, 21 May 2012 21:49:17 +0200 with message-id 20120521194917.gu7...@mykerinos.kheops.frmug.org and subject line Re: Bug#673365: installation-report: dnet-common looks unnecessary for normal environment has caused the Debian Bug report #673365, regarding installation-report:

Re: Bug#673837: Bug#673839: Building an udeb binary

2012-05-21 Thread Julien Cristau
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 21:21:47 +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote: Le 21/05/2012 21:17, Cyril Brulebois a écrit : That means more udebs, more stuff in the d-i image/initramfs. I'm not sure it's worth the trouble. Quite the contrary, in fact. It looks to me like a separate build is better as

Bug#673401: task-web-server: Please remove mod_perl and mod_python from task-web-server

2012-05-21 Thread Cyril Brulebois
Christian PERRIER bubu...@debian.org (21/05/2012): As you mention mod_wsgi to be obsoleting mod_python, do you think we should install one of libapache2-mod-wsgi* packages with the task? There are many other things, as can be seen in django (a python web framework)'s docs:

Bug#673401: task-web-server: Please remove mod_perl and mod_python from task-web-server

2012-05-21 Thread Stefan Fritsch
On Monday 21 May 2012, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Christian PERRIER bubu...@debian.org (21/05/2012): As you mention mod_wsgi to be obsoleting mod_python, do you think we should install one of libapache2-mod-wsgi* packages with the task? There are many other things, as can be seen in django

Processing of clock-setup_0.111_i386.changes

2012-05-21 Thread Debian FTP Masters
clock-setup_0.111_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: clock-setup_0.111.dsc clock-setup_0.111.tar.gz clock-setup_0.111_i386.udeb Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon (running on host franck.debian.org) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to

Re: installer location on mirrors

2012-05-21 Thread Joerg Jaspert
I also take it we don't need/want the main/contrib/non-free in installer/, as our d-i will always be main/ only. What about firmware stuff? Thats not a new thing - and still we dont have any such image in Debian. Does firmware stuff itself need a whole image? Is anyone working on it (to be

Bug#660093: marked as done (clock-setup: Please support /etc/adjtime in addition to /etc/default)

2012-05-21 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Mon, 21 May 2012 21:24:01 + with message-id e1swa5b-q1...@franck.debian.org and subject line Bug#660093: fixed in clock-setup 0.111 has caused the Debian Bug report #660093, regarding clock-setup: Please support /etc/adjtime in addition to /etc/default to be marked as

clock-setup_0.111_i386.changes ACCEPTED into unstable

2012-05-21 Thread Debian FTP Masters
Accepted: clock-setup_0.111.dsc to main/c/clock-setup/clock-setup_0.111.dsc clock-setup_0.111.tar.gz to main/c/clock-setup/clock-setup_0.111.tar.gz clock-setup_0.111_i386.udeb to main/c/clock-setup/clock-setup_0.111_i386.udeb Changes: clock-setup (0.111) unstable; urgency=low . [

Debian installer build: failed or old builds

2012-05-21 Thread Daily build aggregator
Debian installer build overview --- Failed or old builds: * OLD BUILD:armel May 08 08:10 buildd@ancina build_iop32x_netboot http://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/armel/daily/build_iop32x_netboot.log * OLD BUILD:armel May 08 08:13 buildd@ancina