Package: installation-reports
Debian-installer-version: RC1 netinst image from
http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/
uname -a: Linux shiny 2.6.8.1 #1 Fri Aug 20 12:46:15 EST 2004 i686 GNU/Linux
(This is after I installed a _working_ kernel, namely 2.6.8.1 =)
Date: Friday 20 August 2004
Package: installation-reports
Version: beta2
Severity: normal
INSTALL REPORT
Debian-installer-version: beta 2
uname -a: Linux blackhole 2.4.23-1-k7 #1 Mon Dec 1 00:05:09 EST 2003 i686 GNU/
Linux
Date: 21/1/04
Method:
CDROM and network install using sarge-i386-businesscard.iso
Initial boot was f
Hi...
On Wed, 4 Jun 2003 07:38 pm, Martin Sjögren wrote:
>
> There are a few issues with the patch:
> 1. It asks about too many packages. Packages that are already installed
> should definitely not be in the list at all.
It shouldn't prompt for those - see the tests for installed() when building
Hi...
On Tue, 3 Jun 2003 10:39 pm, Martin Sjögren wrote:
> Yes. A future project of mine is to change that question so that
> packages with priority standard will appear in the list too, with
> checked boxes. But this question will most likely be asked at priority
> low, as only a nitpicker should
Package: base-installer
Version: 0.022
Severity: normal
Hi...
I'm using the 'newt' frontend of debian-installer when installing. If
debootstrap fails, the message that the frontend displays does not contain
enough information to track down the problem (one has to go grubbing through
/target/va
Hi...
I thought I'd add my installation failure report for today too:
After much screwing around (ie. creating my own local archive of udebs and
base packages, d-i does not play well with apt-cacher btw), I finally almost
got d-i to install debian.
Installing using the 'netboot' image, from a g
generated Packages (but why are both in there in the first
place?)
=)
Peter
On Sun, 1 Jun 2003 08:15 pm, Thorsten Sauter wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> * Peter Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-06-01 07:11]:
> > Quick question: How does one make dpkg-scanpackages look for udebs
Hi...
On Sun, 1 Jun 2003 07:27 pm, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Petter Reinholdtsen]
>
> > developer:~# discover --data-path=linux/module/name \
> > --data-version=2.4 -t -d all -e ata -e pci -e pcmcia -e scsi display
> > --data-version has no meaning without --data-path.
>
> I found the p
Hi..
I imagine the correct fix is simply not to tag discover.conf as a conffile, so
dpkg doesn't play fast and loose with renaming it. Hence add a:
rm -f debian/discover-udeb/DEBIAN/conffiles
right after the call to dh_installdeb when building discover-udeb.
This seems to work fine.
=)
Peter
O
Hi Jeff...
In addition to the three patches I sent earlier for discover to build from
source, I suggest the attached patch to debian/rules, which simply adds a '.'
in an opportune place, so the libdiscover.so symlink is not added to the udeb
(it's not needed, and it causes the installer's libra
Hi...
Quick question: How does one make dpkg-scanpackages look for udebs so I can
generate a local apt-able repository of udebs?
=)
Peter
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi...
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 07:53:41AM -0700, Chris Tillman wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 12:54:47PM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> >
> > [Martin Sjögren]
> think it would be worthwhile code-wise to standardize on 2. How many
> people are actually going to burn floppies? And 2 is not muc
Hi...
Just trying to build debian-installer.
The build dies for me due to depmod dying with a:
depmod: QM_MODULES: Function not implemented
The reason for this is because I am attempting to build d-i on a machine
with a 2.5 kernel installed (and hence depmod cannot meaningfully
communicate with
13 matches
Mail list logo
