On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 21:53:24 -0400 (EDT), Ben Hutchings wrote:
I don't think this urgently needs to be fixed before squeeze, as it is
only affects unofficial kernel packages.
And that is the first explanation from *anyone* as to why the
severity should be important instead of serious. If
On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 09:50 -0400, Stephen Powell wrote:
[...]
Personally, I think that the requirement to maintain symlinks, if used,
is implicit in the purpose of the boot loader hook script.
[...]
After thinking about this some more and actually trying to implement the
hook scripts, I think
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 16:20:20 -0400 (EDT), Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 09:50 -0400, Stephen Powell wrote:
[...]
Personally, I think that the requirement to maintain symlinks, if used,
is implicit in the purpose of the boot loader hook script.
[...]
After thinking about this
On Sun, 2010-08-29 at 21:31 -0400, Stephen Powell wrote:
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 16:20:20 -0400 (EDT), Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 09:50 -0400, Stephen Powell wrote:
[...]
Personally, I think that the requirement to maintain symlinks, if used,
is implicit in the purpose of the
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 18:48:57 -0400 (EDT), Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 15:04 -0400, Stephen Powell wrote:
Ben,
I could use your help on bug number 594127. Am I not understanding
the policy? Please read the bug log and advise. Thanks.
Assuming that s390 kernels normally
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 09:50:47AM -0400, Stephen Powell wrote:
[...]
Personally, I think that the requirement to maintain symlinks, if used,
is implicit in the purpose of the boot loader hook script.
[...]
No, that means it has to be repeated in many different packages.
Ben.
--
Ben
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:25:02 -0400 (EDT), Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 09:50:47AM -0400, Stephen Powell wrote:
[...]
Personally, I think that the requirement to maintain symlinks, if used,
is implicit in the purpose of the boot loader hook script.
[...]
No, that means it
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 14:02:13 -0400 (EDT), Stephen Powell wrote:
The alternative, obviously, is a separate hook script to maintain symlinks.
That immediately raises two more questions: (1) How do we make sure that
it executes *after* the initramfs hook and *before* the boot loader hook, and
Quoting from http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#severities
Severity levels
...
serious
is a severe violation of Debian policy (roughly, it violates a must
or required directive), or, in the package maintainer's or release
manager's opinion, makes the package unsuitable for
severity 594127 important
thanks
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 02:17:48PM -0400, Stephen Powell wrote:
The previous post shows that a *must* directive is being violated.
Therefore, setting severity to serious.
Don't play bts ping-pong.
Bastian
--
Earth -- mother of the most beautiful women in the
On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 15:04 -0400, Stephen Powell wrote:
Ben,
I could use your help on bug number 594127. Am I not understanding
the policy? Please read the bug log and advise. Thanks.
Assuming that s390 kernels normally use an initramfs to boot, I think
you're right about the lack of an
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:32:36 -0400 (EDT), Bastian Blank wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 05:17:31PM -0400, Stephen Powell wrote:
(1) the hook scripts provided,
/etc/kernel/postinst.d/zz-zipl and /etc/kernel/postrm.d/zz-zipl,
do not maintain the symbolic links. The zipl boot loader typically
Package: s390-tools
Version: 1.8.3-2
Severity: serious
s390-tools version 1.8.3-2 was recently migrated to testing, and it
contained a fix for Debian bug report 590028. However, this fix is
incomplete, for two reasons:
(1) the hook scripts provided,
/etc/kernel/postinst.d/zz-zipl and
severity 594127 important
thanks
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 05:17:31PM -0400, Stephen Powell wrote:
(1) the hook scripts provided,
/etc/kernel/postinst.d/zz-zipl and /etc/kernel/postrm.d/zz-zipl,
do not maintain the symbolic links. The zipl boot loader typically
uses the historic symbolic links
14 matches
Mail list logo
