Bonjour,
Dixit Holger Wansing, le 18/04/2015 :
I just noted, that the french translation of the d-i manual was
lacking the definition of arch-title; for the ppc64el architecture.
That leads to no text being displayed when that entity is used.
(I had the same problem in German, that where I saw
Accepted:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 11:17:56 +0200
Source: debian-installer-netboot-images
Binary: debian-installer-8-netboot-amd64 debian-installer-8-netboot-arm64
debian-installer-8-netboot-armel debian-installer-8-netboot-armhf
debian-installer-netboot-images_20150418_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to
localhost
along with the files:
debian-installer-netboot-images_20150418.dsc
debian-installer-netboot-images_20150418.tar.xz
debian-installer-8-netboot-amd64_20150418_all.deb
Package: console-setup
Version: 1.122
Followup-For: Bug #759657
Out-of-band I received the suggestion to create
/etc/systemd/system/console-setup.service.d/wait4udev.conf
with the content
[Unit]
Wants=systemd-udev-settle.service
After=systemd-udev-settle.service
Package: console-setup
Version: 1.121
Followup-For: Bug #759657
These are the system settings
- after boot showing the wrong setup
- but AFTER running systemctl restart console-setup.service
- after which the setup is correct
in other words just after the previous
Your message dated Sun, 19 Apr 2015 09:43:37 +0200
with message-id 20150419094337.3c9a2085@s5.lokal
and subject line done
has caused the Debian Bug report #782757,
regarding installation-report: Jessie-RC-AMD64 on my build-PC
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has
Your message dated Sun, 19 Apr 2015 12:14:03 +0200
with message-id 27493164.e86UacO8HP@gyllingar
and subject line Re: Bug#782845: debian-installer-netboot-images: FTBFS with a
checksum mismatch
has caused the Debian Bug report #782845,
regarding debian-installer-netboot-images: FTBFS with a
Package: console-setup
Version: 1.121
Followup-For: Bug #759657
This is just to document system information
- right after boot
- showing the wrong setup (forgotten font)
- before fixing by reconfiguring console-setup
in case it is any different from the following report.
Package: debian-installer-netboot-images
Severity: serious
The RC policy states Packages must be buildable within the same
release.. In this context I interpret buildable as buildable from
actual sourcecode (not just package together) and the same release as
the collection of stuff that
Your message dated Sun, 19 Apr 2015 20:02:38 -0400
with message-id
CANTw=mnglo7bk5yn4wwtmjyt5olbkc_wijxrlhgf9jp4-vw...@mail.gmail.com
and subject line Re: Bug#782976: debian-installer-netboot-images packages
kfreebsd images but kfreebsd is not in jessie.
has caused the Debian Bug report #782976,
peter green plugw...@p10link.net (2015-04-20):
Package: debian-installer-netboot-images
Severity: serious
The RC policy states Packages must be buildable within the same release..
In this context I interpret buildable as buildable from actual sourcecode
(not just package together) and the
Op 19-04-15 om 22:00 schreef Turbo Fredriksson:
If someone wants newer version, they can (should!) upgrade to the newer
distribution. OR, if they're brave, use back ports.
Do you mean upgrade to testing?
Nobody gets a newer version by enabling backports in sources.list, you
only get a newer
Package: installation-reports
Severity: normal
Tags: d-i
-- Package-specific info:
Boot method: CD
Image version:
http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/jessie_di_rc2/amd64/iso-cd/debian-jessie-DI-rc2-amd64-netinst.iso
Date: 2015-04-17 22:16
Machine: HP Pavilion 500-308ng
Partitions:
On Apr 19, 2015, at 8:25 PM, Geert Stappers wrote:
What is the danger of having backports (default) enabled?
From what I've seen (when I tried it a couple of years ago), is that
the back porting is quite … sloppy. If the package needs a newer lib,
that is back ported as well. And the newer lib
Op 19-04-15 om 20:59 schreef Turbo Fredriksson:
On Apr 19, 2015, at 8:25 PM, Geert Stappers wrote:
What is the danger of having backports (default) enabled?
From what I've seen (when I tried it a couple of years ago), is that
the back porting is quite … sloppy. If the package needs a newer
micah anderson mi...@debian.org (2015-04-19):
You pointed out that apt will happily install a package from backports
if it is not available in the base suite, which might mean that you
don't realize that you are going to install something from backports
because you didn't explicitly ask for
Hi,
Niels Thykier ni...@thykier.net wrote:
On 2015-04-11 08:07, Baptiste Jammet wrote:
Hello,
Dixit Niels Thykier, le 16/03/2015 :
I am contacting you to do a final review of the release-notes for the
d-i related topics (as listed on [1]):
Here are some items I think it's
On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 07:35:21PM +0200, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
On Apr 19, 2015, at 7:15 PM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Do you see that ?but?? That's exactly why it's not safe to have this
turned on by default.
Thank you KiBi! I defiantly don't want back ports enabled by default!
Quoting Paul van der Vlis (p...@vandervlis.nl):
Hello,
I saw backports has been removed as default setting from sources.list in
Jessie RC3. I am very disappointed by this last minute change, without
much discussion so far I know. I did not know about this bug.
In my opinion it's very good
Op 19-04-15 om 18:12 schreef Cyril Brulebois:
Paul van der Vlis p...@vandervlis.nl (2015-04-19):
I saw backports has been removed as default setting from sources.list in
Jessie RC3. I am very disappointed by this last minute change, without
much discussion so far I know. I did not know about
On Apr 19, 2015, at 7:15 PM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Paul van der Vlis p...@vandervlis.nl (2015-04-19):
Are all machines with backports enabled ticking timebombs?
No, but you have to know what you do.
Do you see that “but”? That's exactly why it's not safe to have this
turned on by
Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Packages sometimes bitrot in backports, with unfixed security issues, up
to the point they get removed. That can also happen because they're not
supportable anymore (e.g. owncloud in wheezy-backports). Now we have
debian-security-support for pathological cases in stable;
Holger Wansing li...@wansing-online.de (2015-04-19):
The release-notes currently contain
Graphical installer
Graphical installer is now the default on supported platforms.
Text installer is still accessible from the very first menu, or if
the system has limited
Paul van der Vlis p...@vandervlis.nl (2015-04-19):
Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Packages sometimes bitrot in backports, with unfixed security issues,
up to the point they get removed. That can also happen because they're
not supportable anymore (e.g. owncloud in wheezy-backports). Now we
have
Paul van der Vlis p...@vandervlis.nl (2015-04-19):
Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Packages sometimes bitrot in backports, with unfixed security issues,
up to the point they get removed. That can also happen because they're
not supportable anymore (e.g. owncloud in wheezy-backports). Now we
have
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
reopen 764982
Bug #764982 {Done: Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org} [apt-setup-udeb]
apt-setup-udeb: Backports via d-i, but not by default
'reopen' may be inappropriate when a bug has been closed with a version;
all fixed versions will be cleared,
reopen 764982
stop
On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 07:13:36PM +0200, Geert Stappers wrote:
control reopen -1
stop
BR reopened for futher discussion.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Hi,
Niels Thykier ni...@thykier.net wrote:
I tried to ask in #debian-i18n about the new languages, but so far no
one has replied me. I am a bit overbooked, so if any you have time to
follow on that, then I would greatly appreciate it.
I have looked into this. Based on
On Apr 19, 2015, at 9:48 PM, Paul van der Vlis wrote:
Did you check if it really was back ports?
Yes. I've been using Debian GNU/Linux since.. 'bo' or something and a DD since
'97 or so. I know what I'm doing (98% of the time :).
I use backports on all machines I care about, and I never had
Steve McIntyre st...@einval.com (2015-04-19):
I know that the kFreeBSD ports are not being officially released
[1]. What plans (if any) have been made for any *un*official releases?
I've just removed the BSD builds from the debian-cd architecture lists
in preparation for next weekend, but I've
The Debian Installer team[1] is pleased to announce the third release
candidate of the installer for Debian 8 Jessie.
Improvements in this release of the installer
=
* apt-setup:
- Stop enabling backports by default (#764982).
* clock-setup:
Hello,
I saw backports has been removed as default setting from sources.list in
Jessie RC3. I am very disappointed by this last minute change, without
much discussion so far I know. I did not know about this bug.
In my opinion it's very good when backports is default in sources.list.
With
Paul van der Vlis p...@vandervlis.nl (2015-04-19):
I saw backports has been removed as default setting from sources.list in
Jessie RC3. I am very disappointed by this last minute change, without
much discussion so far I know. I did not know about this bug.
Not knowing about this bug report
control reopen -1
stop
On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 05:44:12PM +0200, Paul van der Vlis wrote:
Hello,
I saw backports has been removed as default setting from sources.list in
Jessie RC3. I am very disappointed by this last minute change, without
much discussion so far I know. I did not know
Release team: theres a question for you at the end of the mail.
On 20/04/15 00:49, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
peter greenplugw...@p10link.net (2015-04-20):
Package: debian-installer-netboot-images
Severity: serious
The RC policy states Packages must be buildable within the same release..
In
Quoting Holger Wansing (li...@wansing-online.de):
I have double-checked, Tajik is indeed not available in Wheezy installer,
but in Jessie. And it is available in both text and graphical installer
in Jessie.
By the way, Tajik is, IIRC, not 100% complete in the Jessie installer:
Charset is
Quoting Geert Stappers (stapp...@stappers.nl):
reopen 764982
stop
I really don't think this is a good idea and I'm this close to
re-close the bug report.
If anyone feels that something should be done for backports, please
open a new bug report, eventually cloning 764982 in order to keep
In my opinion it's very good when backports is default in sources.list.
My opinion is that I don't want to push ticking time bombs into the
hands of our users. And that's exactly what defaulting to enabling
backports was.
You pointed out that apt will happily install a package from backports
(Please you reply-all on the BTS.)
Paul van der Vlis p...@vandervlis.nl (2015-04-19):
Now there is no time for a discussion anymore!
There's not much to discuss…
And this was not a RC-bug.
Not marked as such but I wouldn't release Jessie with it, so that was RC
anyway. :)
I always enable
Paul van der Vlis p...@vandervlis.nl (2015-04-19):
I saw backports has been removed as default setting from sources.list in
Jessie RC3. I am very disappointed by this last minute change, without
much discussion so far I know. I did not know about this bug.
Not knowing about this bug report
Hi folks,
I know that the kFreeBSD ports are not being officially released
[1]. What plans (if any) have been made for any *un*official releases?
I've just removed the BSD builds from the debian-cd architecture lists
in preparation for next weekend, but I've not heard anything more...
[1]
41 matches
Mail list logo
