Bug#845302:

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"

Bug#859366: linux: Please enable suffix for m68k debian-installer kernel image

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,

Re: CONFIG_SECURITY_SELINUX_CHECKREQPROT_VALUE

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

Re: [DSE-Dev] CONFIG_SECURITY_SELINUX_CHECKREQPROT_VALUE

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

Re: CONFIG_SECURITY_SELINUX_CHECKREQPROT_VALUE

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?

Bug#855094: initramfs-tools-core: Error on upgrade if cryptsetup is installed, but a current busybox isn't

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 >

Re: CONFIG_SECURITY_SELINUX_CHECKREQPROT_VALUE

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

Bug#855094: initramfs-tools-core: Error on upgrade if cryptsetup is installed, but a current busybox isn't

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

Bug#855094: initramfs-tools-core: Error on upgrade if cryptsetup is installed, but a current busybox isn't

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

Processed: Re: Bug#855094: initramfs-tools-core: Error on upgrade if cryptsetup is installed, but a current busybox isn't

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

Re: CONFIG_SECURITY_SELINUX_CHECKREQPROT_VALUE

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

Bug#844460: Additional information

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

Bug#844056: Missing brcmfmac43362-sdio.txt stops wireless working

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

Bug#855094: [pkg-cryptsetup-devel] Bug#855094: initramfs-tools-core: Error on upgrade if cryptsetup is installed, but a current busybox isn't

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 >

Bug#859321: linux-image-4.9.0-2-amd64-unsigned : WARNING sysfs: cannot create duplicate filename '/devices/pnp0/00:05/ppdev/parport0'

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 -

Bug#855094: [pkg-cryptsetup-devel] Bug#855094: initramfs-tools-core: Error on upgrade if cryptsetup is installed, but a current busybox isn'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

Bug#855094: initramfs-tools-core: Error on upgrade if cryptsetup is installed, but a current busybox isn't

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