Dear Zoltán,
Am Samstag, den 01.04.2017, 12:13 +0200 schrieb Boszormenyi Zoltan:
[…]
> and have split the patch into three pieces now (USB quirks, i2c-piix4
> and sp5100_tco) and they were sent to the relevant mailing lists.
Could you please add me to the receiver list of these patches, so th
Got bit by this in and old laptop.
Have LVM on it, with /usr in its own partitition, and /usr/lib in its own
partition.
Fixed by adding
dep_add_modules_mount /usr/lib
to hook_functions, and
if read_fstab_entry /usr/lib; then
log_begin_msg "Mounting /usr/lib file system"
mountfs
Source: linux
Version: 4.9.18-1
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
User: debian-...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: m68k
Hi!
While working on fixing debian-installer on m68k, I ran into the
following problem after updating the m68k-specific configuration
to use the common m68k image:
# Set up modules.dep,
On Sun, 2017-04-02 at 16:43 +0200, cgzones wrote:
> On 2 Apr 2017 3:47 pm, "Ben Hutchings" wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 2017-04-02 at 14:35 +0200, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
> > > Le 02/04/17 à 03:25, cgzones a écrit :
> > > > Is there any reason why the standard Debian kernel sets the value for
> > > >
On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 11:46:59 PM Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > Dear kernel maintainer, do you have an idea about this?
>
> It's been that way in Debian since at least 2005. So anyone who has a
> working SELinux policy for Debian must have taken this behaviour into
> account.
>
> Maybe we'll go with the
On 2 Apr 2017 3:47 pm, "Ben Hutchings" wrote:
On Sun, 2017-04-02 at 14:35 +0200, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
> Le 02/04/17 à 03:25, cgzones a écrit :
> > Is there any reason why the standard Debian kernel sets the value for
> > checkreqprot to 1, while the default[1] is 0?
The default is 1. The c
On Sun, 2017-04-02 at 15:42 +0200, intrigeri wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Ben Hutchings:
> > How about "Breaks: busybox (<< 1:1.22.0-17~)"? I think that does the
> > job.
(I actually include busybox-static in the Breaks field too.)
> Yes :) At least it'll ensure that busybox, if installed, is the right
> o
On Sun, 2017-04-02 at 14:35 +0200, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
> Le 02/04/17 à 03:25, cgzones a écrit :
> > Is there any reason why the standard Debian kernel sets the value for
> > checkreqprot to 1, while the default[1] is 0?
The default is 1. The commit changing the default to 0 went into
4.11-
Hi,
Ben Hutchings:
> How about "Breaks: busybox (<< 1:1.22.0-17~)"? I think that does the
> job.
Yes :) At least it'll ensure that busybox, if installed, is the right
one (which is probably the best we can do as far as initramfs-tools is
concerned). Thanks!
It won't ensure that busybox is insta
Control: tag -1 pending
On Sun, 2017-04-02 at 09:50 +0200, intrigeri wrote:
[...]
> I see no obvious perfect solution. The options I can think of are:
>
> 1. Keeping things as-is:
> - Affected systems: partial upgrades, systems where Recommends were
> manually disabled; I don't think that
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 pending
Bug #855094 [initramfs-tools-core] initramfs-tools-core: Error on upgrade if
cryptsetup is installed, but a current busybox isn't
Added tag(s) pending.
--
855094: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=855094
Debian Bug Tracking System
Con
Le 02/04/17 à 03:25, cgzones a écrit :
Is there any reason why the standard Debian kernel sets the value for
checkreqprot to 1, while the default[1] is 0?
RedHat[2] seems also to use 0 and from the documentation 0 seems to be
the stricter setting.
To be honest I've no idea and the RH bug see
Hi!
Also this bug and for i915 modules linux kernel. Latest Linux kernel
work for my hardware is 4.7. Kernel version 4.8, 4.9, 4.10 not work with
my hardware.
Please fix this bug for Debian release strech. I think that here,
perhaps, the problem is due to the module i915 and drm. It's very sad
th
Same here on Raspberry Pi 3 B, Raspbian Stretch, firmware-brcm80211 20161130-2.
Getting brcmfmac43430-sdio.txt (and brcmfmac43430-sdio.bin) from
https://github.com/RPi-Distro/firmware-nonfree/tree/master/brcm80211/brcm
makes Wifi work again.
See also https://www.raspberrypi.org/forums/viewtopic.p
Guilhem Moulin:
> I think the proper fix would be to split cryptsetup's initramfs bits to
> a separate package (depending on busybox), cf. #783297. It's
> unfortunate that we didn't implement that in time for Stretch, but
> considering the impact of this, I'd favor downgrading the severity and
> m
Package: linux-image-4.9.0-2-amd64-unsigned
Version: 4.9.18-1
Dear maintainer,
here are warnings I observed during boot in a VMWare virtual machine.
The taint comes from this previous error message:
[0.653706] scsi_mod: module verification failed: signature and/or required
key missing - t
Hi intrigeri,
On Sun, 02 Apr 2017 at 09:50:55 +0200, intrigeri wrote:
> So at this point, I suggest this bug is reassigned to cryptsetup, and
> option 3 is implemented there. But downgrading to non-RC and leaving
> things as-is seems acceptable to me as well.
>
> Thoughts?
I think the proper fix
Hi initramfs-tools & cryptsetup maintainers,
initramfs-tools-core has:
Recommends: busybox (>= 1:1.22.0-17~) | busybox-static (>= 1:1.22.0-17~)
… which makes sense since initramfs-tools itself can work
without busybox.
But then indeed, the cryptsetup hook requires busybox. Still,
cryptsetup c
18 matches
Mail list logo
