intrigeri wrote (08 May 2014 12:06:31 GMT) :
> Thanks for the added info. Is the VM given a 32-bit or 64-bit CPU?
> May you please try the other?
Nevermind. It seems to have been fixed in syslinux 6.03-pre5:
http://bugzilla.syslinux.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45
http://www.syslinux.org/archives/2014
> Sorry, what I meant was that the Linux kernel doesn't boot; the syslinux
> menu is shown, but once a boot option is picked we get a completely
> black screen, and the VirtualBox process starts churning at 100% CPU
> with no sign of progress.
Thanks for the added info. Is the VM given a 32-bit or
07/05/14 18:35, intrigeri wrote:
> anonym wrote (07 May 2014 16:00:14 GMT) :
>> However, I don't think that's relevant as I was testing *DVD* boot from
>> the image I built.
>
> Ah, OK. I've added this (very important) info to the test reports page.
>
>> This was what I though the known issue was
anonym wrote (07 May 2014 16:00:14 GMT) :
> However, I don't think that's relevant as I was testing *DVD* boot from
> the image I built.
Ah, OK. I've added this (very important) info to the test reports page.
> This was what I though the known issue was about after I confirmed
> that DVD boot doe
06/05/14 18:46, intrigeri wrote:
> hi,
>
> a core developer added some VirtualBox/UEFI compatibility notes in
> commit 349ebfe82. Thanks!
That was me.
> The thing is, these reports are about an ISO built from a commit
> I made on May 3rd; and, I only uploaded on the very same day a version
> of
hi,
a core developer added some VirtualBox/UEFI compatibility notes in
commit 349ebfe82. Thanks!
The thing is, these reports are about an ISO built from a commit
I made on May 3rd; and, I only uploaded on the very same day a version
of liveusb-creator that merged the latest changes in stable/deve
