Bug#699808: Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

Daniel Baumann (07/02/2013): > On 02/07/2013 08:12 AM, Michael Biebl wrote: > >This list is getting longer with each email. Seeing that syslinux 5 has > >been in sid for less then 10 days, I'm worried what other issues might > >show up. > > apart from the two obvious things (debian-installer and

Re: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 08:30:35AM +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote: > On 02/07/2013 08:12 AM, Michael Biebl wrote: > >This list is getting longer with each email. Seeing that syslinux 5 has > >been in sid for less then 10 days, I'm worried what other issues might > >show up. > > apart from the two obv

Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

Hi, On Wed, 06 Feb 2013, Bdale Garbee wrote: > two at a time. Holding d-i's build dependencies static in unstable for > more than half a year is just nuts to me! Sure seems like d-i is > something we should build using the components of the release it will be > contained in and not unstable... b

Bug#699808: Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

i'm not commenting on unfair accusations, so only to the relevant part: On 02/07/2013 09:00 AM, Cyril Brulebois wrote: again, note that any other virtualization software, be it in wheezy directly (qemu, kvm) or otherwise (parallels, vmware) which i've tested with, has no bugs with syslinux 5. it

Bug#699808: Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

Daniel Baumann (07/02/2013): > i'm not commenting on unfair accusations, so only to the relevant part: > > On 02/07/2013 09:00 AM, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > >>again, note that any other virtualization software, be it in wheezy > >>directly (qemu, kvm) or otherwise (parallels, vmware) which i've >

Bug#699808: Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

On 02/07/2013 09:59 AM, Cyril Brulebois wrote: That doesn't mean we should be keeping syslinux 5 in sid in the meanwhile, especially since that's preventing us from releasing d-i wheezy rc1. (ftr) which is where i disagree, with the mentioned patch against d-i and debian-cd, you can release d-

Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

On Thu, 07 Feb 2013, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > on the mirror and not in the package repository (the installer directories > are shared between wheezy and sid). Cyril pointed out to me that this specific point is wrong, while wheezy/main/installer-* and unstable/main/installer-* have the same conten

Bug#699808: Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

Daniel Baumann (07/02/2013): > (ftr) which is where i disagree, with the mentioned patch against > d-i and debian-cd, you can release d-i wheezy rc1, even with > syslinux 5.x in sid. > > even more so: since steve uses a local copy of syslinux anyway > (judging from debian-cd sources as unfortunat

Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

On 02/07/2013 09:31, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Technically d-i point release updates are built in > "stable-proposed-updates" and build dependencies are satisfied in stable > (+ s-p-u maybe). Similarly it should be possible to build d-i for wheezy > in testing-proposed-updates right now (and have bu

Bug#699808: Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

On 02/07/2013 10:27 AM, Cyril Brulebois wrote: That means at least broken mini.iso, which is totally unacceptable. broken without the patch i send for debian-installer, yes. therefore, right now, even without any patches, the only actually affected things are the images within the debian-inst

Bug#699808: Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 07:52:13AM +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote: > >consider such a misfeature to be in critical need of a fix (iirc >steve puts a local copy of the 'to be used' syslinux version to be >used by debian-cd for release images manually on the local fs; not >sure about the same that ends

Bug#699808: Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

Daniel Baumann (07/02/2013): > On 02/07/2013 10:27 AM, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > >That means at least broken mini.iso, which is totally unacceptable. > > broken without the patch i send for debian-installer, yes. If that can't be used with virtualbox (and we already established that, thanks to Mi

Bug#699808: Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 10:15:42AM +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote: >On 02/07/2013 09:59 AM, Cyril Brulebois wrote: >>That doesn't >>mean we should be keeping syslinux 5 in sid in the meanwhile, especially >>since that's preventing us from releasing d-i wheezy rc1. > >(ftr) which is where i disagree, w

Bug#699808: Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

On 02/07/2013 10:53 AM, Cyril Brulebois wrote: If that can't be used with virtualbox (and we already established that, thanks to Michael's testing), that means it's broken with your patch too. as already elaborated, the bug in vbox needs to be fixed anyway, regardless what version of syslinux

Bug#699808: Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

Daniel Baumann, le Thu 07 Feb 2013 11:08:55 +0100, a écrit : > i've already made the case why i want newer syslinux in sid, I must have missed that, and I can't find it on either bug #699382, 699742 or 699808. Samuel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subje

Bug#699808: Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

On 02/07/2013 11:17 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote: I must have missed that, and I can't find it on either bug #699382, 699742 or 699808. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=699808#10 -- Address:Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH-3012 Bern Email: daniel.baum...@progr

Bug#699808: Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 11:08:55AM +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote: > i'm argueing for either an explicit unfrozen sid or an explicit > frozen sid. since it's neither right now, and you intend to > overwrite the maintainers decision via CTTE to upload newer syslinux > to sid, you need to argue against

Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

Bdale Garbee wrote: > Sure seems like d-i is something we should build using the components > of the release it will be contained in and not unstable... but I > haven't tried to think hard about what that might imply that's > problematic. And I certainly don't think this is something we should > e

Bug#699808: Bug#699742: Bug#699808: Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

Steve McIntyre wrote: > On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 07:52:13AM +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote: > > > >consider such a misfeature to be in critical need of a fix (iirc > >steve puts a local copy of the 'to be used' syslinux version to be > >used by debian-cd for release images manually on the local fs; not

Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

Bdale Garbee wrote: > patch d-i to build successfully against the syslinux in sid syslinux is GPL'd, so this would result in shipping d-i images in wheezy which contain a GPL'd binary for which there is no source in wheezy. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

Joey Hess (07/02/2013): > This can be done easily, just upload d-i to t-p-u. d-i uploads are > already built with udebs from testing, for similar reasons. > > There seems to be an unholy fear of using t-p-u for anything these days, > which I don't really understand. Even when not using it causes

Bug#699808: Bug#699742: Bug#699808: Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

On 02/07/2013 02:14 PM, Joey Hess wrote: Howver, that is not the only image provided by Debian that uses syslinux. The d-i mini.iso is another one, which uses the syslinux provided by d-i's Build-Depedency, ie the one from unstable. that has already been discussed in earlier messages. -- Addre

Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

Cyril Brulebois wrote: > Joey Hess (07/02/2013): > > This can be done easily, just upload d-i to t-p-u. d-i uploads are > > already built with udebs from testing, for similar reasons. > > > > There seems to be an unholy fear of using t-p-u for anything these days, > > which I don't really unders

Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

On 07.02.2013 14:46, Joey Hess wrote: Cyril Brulebois wrote: Joey Hess (07/02/2013): > This can be done easily, just upload d-i to t-p-u. d-i uploads are > already built with udebs from testing, for similar reasons. > > There seems to be an unholy fear of using t-p-u for anything these days, >

Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 01:48:22PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: > the background for this request can be found in bug#699382. Here are > the highlights: > - the debian-installer source package, which builds the installer images > for debian's releases, build-depends on syslinux > - the release f

Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 01:55:11AM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > On a personal note, I'm unsure how we came up with a situation where a > single maintainer can *actively* stall a release… Not caring about the > release process put into place years ago is a thing. Stopping people > from fixing pro

Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

Colin Watson writes ("Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release"): > But I do think that the syslinux maintainer > should revert to 4.x in unstable; I'd rather that be voluntary but I'd > be willing to vote to overrule if need be. >From what I've read so far I tend to agree. In Julie

Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 10:33:00AM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > As Adam already pointed out we would still need another d-i upload to > unstable to make sure unstable has a higher-or-equal version compared to > testing. Sometimes I wonder why it cannot simply propagate to the upper suite. We d

Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 04:26:49PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > How about this for a disposal: I would vote for the below with reservation or modifications. Thanks for drafting this, Ian. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer

Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

Ian Jackson writes: > How about this for a disposal: Works for me. Thank you! -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.d

Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

On 08.02.2013 03:16, Steve Langasek wrote: On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 04:26:49PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: How about this for a disposal: I would vote for the below with reservation or modifications. Thanks for drafting this, Ian. Is there an "out" missing in the first sentence? (If not, wha