Re: Contacting Debian Boot team

Hi Andreas, On 2024-06-06 04:38, Andreas Tille wrote: > Any experiences with Lenovo Thinkpad X13S? Finally Lenovo is present on > DebConfs and we can talk to them. Just from reading[1] it seems to be > what I'm looking for in principle - provided they might unbundle Win11 > from it and I can

Re: Contacting Debian Boot team

Hi Holger, Am Thu, May 30, 2024 at 04:48:17PM +0200 schrieb Holger Wansing: > Andreas Tille wrote (Sun, 26 May 2024 11:31:24 +0200): > > - Do you feel good when doing your work in Debian Boot team? > > While I have to admit that I'm mostly doing just the simple things :-) I consider this a

Re: Contacting Debian Boot team

Hi Phil, Am Mon, May 27, 2024 at 12:15:47AM +0200 schrieb Philip Hands: > This is mostly because I found that I wasn't able to devote the time > required to test things to my satisfaction when my first daughter came > along, So we will see you back in the team once your youngest child is around

Re: Contacting Debian Boot team

Hi, Am Fri, May 31, 2024 at 04:54:13PM +0200 schrieb Cyril Brulebois: > > However, my question was rather whether you know some valid reasons > > why derivatives are exchanging the install method - maybe that > > question should be better asked on Debian-Boot (if so feel free to > > ignore this

Re: Grub error on an installed system

On 06/06/2024 at 12:35, darkpenguin wrote: Harmless messages are fine, but what could be taking about 4 seconds of waiting at "Welcome to GRUB!" before the menu? Is there any way to find out? You can try adding 'set debug=all' and 'echo ' commands in /boot/efi/EFI/debian/grub.cfg and

Re: Grub error on an installed system

Thanks for the info! So it won't be in Bookworm then, but should be there right after. Harmless messages are fine, but what could be taking about 4 seconds of waiting at "Welcome to GRUB!" before the menu? Is there any way to find out? On 06/06/24 14:30, Pascal Hambourg wrote: > On 06/06/2024

Re: Grub error on an installed system

On 06/06/2024 at 11:51, darkpenguin wrote: On a new Bookworm installation I see a new issue: before grub-efi shows the menu, it pauses for a whole few seconds on "Welcome to GRUB!", and then flashes an error for a split second: error: no such device: /.disk/info error: no such device:

Re: Planning for 12.6/11.10

press@ - please could you comment on the dates proposed below Thanks, Adam On Mon, 2024-05-27 at 13:07 +0100, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > Hi, > > The final bullseye point release 11.10 (and therefore also 12.6 for > versioning) should be soon after 10th June, when security team > support >

Re: Adding systemd-boot support in debian-installer

On Mon, 2024-06-03 at 20:18 +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > Hmm? Did we get rid of supporting the installation of systems without > > a bootloader? I found this very handy when installing on systems that > > don't support standard bootloaders or when installing inside QEMU and > > then booting

Re: Adding systemd-boot support in debian-installer

On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 at 20:07, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > > Hello, > > On Mon, 2024-06-03 at 03:46 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > > ACK on the .mrconfig part, but I think this misses an addition to > > packages/po/packages_list (to be confirmed with Holger Wansing). Might > > be best to

Re: Adding systemd-boot support in debian-installer

Hello, On Mon, 2024-06-03 at 03:46 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > ACK on the .mrconfig part, but I think this misses an addition to > packages/po/packages_list (to be confirmed with Holger Wansing). Might > be best to get rid of the fuzzy parts still mentioning nobootloader > beforehand though.

Re: Adding systemd-boot support in debian-installer

On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 at 16:11, Holger Wansing wrote: > > Hi, > > Am 3. Juni 2024 11:23:57 MESZ schrieb Luca Boccassi : > >On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 at 02:47, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > >> Luca Boccassi (2024-06-03): > >> > >> > https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/d-i/-/merge_requests/17 > >> > >> TIL:

Re: Adding systemd-boot support in debian-installer

Hi, Am 3. Juni 2024 11:23:57 MESZ schrieb Luca Boccassi : >On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 at 02:47, Cyril Brulebois wrote: >> Luca Boccassi (2024-06-03): >> >> > https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/d-i/-/merge_requests/17 >> >> TIL: builscript. >> >> ACK on the .mrconfig part, but I think this misses

Re: Planning for 12.6/11.10

On Mon, 27, May, 2024 at 01:07:17PM +0100, Jonathan Wiltshire spoke thus.. > The final bullseye point release 11.10 (and therefore also 12.6 for > versioning) should be soon after 10th June, when security team support > will end. > > Please indicate availability for: > > Saturday 15th June >

Re: Adding systemd-boot support in debian-installer

On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 at 02:47, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > > Hi, > > Luca Boccassi (2024-06-03): > > I've created a udeb that adds an expert menu item to allow choosing > > systemd-boot (in the NEW queue): > > > > https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/systemd-boot-installer > > The `Architecture:

Re: Bug#1072501: ITP: systemd-boot-installer -- Install systemd-boot on a hard disk

On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 at 02:22, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > > Hi, > > Luca Boccassi (2024-06-03): > > Package: wnpp > > Severity: wishlist > > Owner: Luca Boccassi > > X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-de...@lists.debian.org > > > > * Package name: systemd-boot-installer > > Version : 0.1 > >

Re: Adding systemd-boot support in debian-installer

Hi, Luca Boccassi (2024-06-03): > I've created a udeb that adds an expert menu item to allow choosing > systemd-boot (in the NEW queue): > > https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/systemd-boot-installer The `Architecture: all` in control vs the 64-bit EFI logic in the script seems odd at

Re: Bug#1072501: ITP: systemd-boot-installer -- Install systemd-boot on a hard disk

Hi, Luca Boccassi (2024-06-03): > Package: wnpp > Severity: wishlist > Owner: Luca Boccassi > X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-de...@lists.debian.org > > * Package name: systemd-boot-installer > Version : 0.1 > Upstream Author : Luca Boccassi > * URL : >

Processed: Re: Bug#1072204: setupcon: race condition with systemd-tmpfiles

Processing control commands: > Tags -1 + pending Bug #1072204 [console-setup] setupcon: race condition with systemd-tmpfiles Added tag(s) pending. -- 1072204: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1072204 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Re: Contacting Debian Boot team

Hi, No problems regarding the extensive reply, glad you liked it. I'm trimming all parts that didn't look like they needed a follow-up to keep this brief… Andreas Tille (2024-05-31): > sorry for my late reply - I was basically offline the last couple > of days. No need to be sorry. > However,

Re: Contacting Debian Boot team

Hi Cyril, sorry for my late reply - I was basically offline the last couple of days. Am Sun, May 26, 2024 at 08:55:37PM +0200 schrieb Cyril Brulebois: > What follows is only my point of view, and anyone active within the > installer team is welcome to share their own. Thanks a lot for your

Re: Contacting Debian Boot team

Hi all, Andreas Tille wrote (Sun, 26 May 2024 11:31:24 +0200): > - Do you feel good when doing your work in Debian Boot team? Yes! While I have to admit that I'm mostly doing just the simple things :-) I consider myself being only a small candle on the cake. Being not a programmer, I don't do

Re: migrating grub from BIOS to UEFI loses /etc/default/grub

On 30/05/2024 at 12:07, Felix Zielcke wrote: d-boot is actually the wrong mailing list to discuss grub. Right, so I posted a digest of this thread to the GRUB maintainer list for further discussion.

Re: migrating grub from BIOS to UEFI loses /etc/default/grub

Am Dienstag, dem 28.05.2024 um 00:16 +0200 schrieb Pascal Hambourg: > - Remove /etc/default/grub only if it is associated with the package > being purged in ucf. > > - Do not remove /etc/default/grub when purging package- > because > it is used by grub-install and update-grub which belong to

Processed: Re: Bug#1072092: piuparts: switch default tmpdir to /var/tmp/

Processing control commands: > affects -1 - piuparts debos vmdb2 Bug #1072092 [debootstrap] piuparts: switch default tmpdir to /var/tmp/ Removed indication that 1072092 affects piuparts, debos, and vmdb2 > reassign -1 piuparts Bug #1072092 [debootstrap] piuparts: switch default tmpdir to

Re: Planning for 12.6/11.10

On Mon, 2024-05-27 at 13:07 +0100, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > The final bullseye point release 11.10 (and therefore also 12.6 for > versioning) should be soon after 10th June, when security team > support > will end. > > Please indicate availability for: > >   Saturday 15th June >   Saturday

Processed: Re: Bug#1072092: piuparts: switch default tmpdir to /var/tmp/

Processing control commands: > reassign -1 debootstrap Bug #1072092 [src:piuparts] piuparts: switch default tmpdir to /var/tmp/ Bug reassigned from package 'src:piuparts' to 'debootstrap'. Ignoring request to alter found versions of bug #1072092 to the same values previously set Ignoring request

Re: migrating grub from BIOS to UEFI loses /etc/default/grub

On 26/05/2024 à 16:08, Harald Dunkel wrote: This is a highly destructive bug. You have UEFI boot finally working, you just do some cleanup, and on the next reboot of your server 8 weeks later it doesn't boot anymore. :-( On the other hand, I doubt many users care to purge the old grub package

Re: Contacting Debian Boot team

Philip Hands writes: ... > It probably wouldn't harm to offer some funding to osuosl, because they > let us use their systems for various things and making sure that they > are sustainable would be wise. (that's who host most of what I'm running > openqa on at present, and they also host jenkins

Re: Planning for 12.6/11.10

Steve McIntyre (2024-05-27): > On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 01:07:17PM +0100, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > > Please indicate availability for: > > > > Saturday 15th June > > Saturday 22nd June > > Saturday 29th June > > Any of those are feasible for me. Ditto. Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois

Re: Planning for 12.6/11.10

On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 01:07:17PM +0100, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > Hi, > > The final bullseye point release 11.10 (and therefore also 12.6 for > versioning) should be soon after 10th June, when security team support > will end. > > Please indicate availability for: > > Saturday 15th June >

Re: Planning for 12.6/11.10

On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 01:07:17PM +0100, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: >Hi, > >The final bullseye point release 11.10 (and therefore also 12.6 for >versioning) should be soon after 10th June, when security team support >will end. > >Please indicate availability for: > > Saturday 15th June >

Re: Planning for 12.6/11.10

15th and 22th June works for me 10th June collides with WWDC 2024 for me (Online or the Stockholm event have not decided yet) and 29th June i am at the openSUSE Conference 2024 in Nuremberg, Germany and helping out in person Den mån 27 maj 2024 kl 13:07 skrev Jonathan Wiltshire : > > Hi, > > The

Re: Contacting Debian Boot team

Hi Andreas, Andreas Tille writes: ... > I have some specific questions to the Debian Boot team. > > - Do you feel good when doing your work in Debian Boot team? I'm currently rather peripheral to the team, so tend to potter around doing my own thing. This is mostly because I found that I

Re: Contacting Debian Boot team

Hallo Andreas, What follows is only my point of view, and anyone active within the installer team is welcome to share their own. Andreas Tille (2024-05-26): > I'd be really happy if you would find some time to answer my questions > at the end of this mail (preferably in public on the list but

Re: migrating grub from BIOS to UEFI loses /etc/default/grub

Am Sonntag, dem 26.05.2024 um 16:08 +0200 schrieb Harald Dunkel: > On 2024-05-24 20:36:41, Pascal Hambourg wrote: > > > > > It is a known bug. > > This is a highly destructive bug. You have UEFI boot finally working, > you just do some cleanup, and on the next reboot of your server 8 > weeks

Re: migrating grub from BIOS to UEFI loses /etc/default/grub

On 2024-05-24 20:36:41, Pascal Hambourg wrote: It is a known bug. This is a highly destructive bug. You have UEFI boot finally working, you just do some cleanup, and on the next reboot of your server 8 weeks later it doesn't boot anymore. :-( AFAICT the problem is the config file isn't

Processed: Re: Bug#1071873: debian-installer: FTBFS: unsatisfiable build-dependencies

Processing control commands: > tag -1 patch Bug #1071873 [src:debian-installer] debian-installer: FTBFS: unsatisfiable build-dependencies Added tag(s) patch. -- 1071873: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1071873 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with

Re: migrating grub from BIOS to UEFI loses /etc/default/grub

On 24/05/2024 at 11:08, Harald Dunkel wrote: if I migrate a bookworm installation from grub-pc to grub-uefi, then grub-pc.postrm removes /etc/default/grub on the final purge. AFAICT /etc/default/grub is still processed for UEFI, so why is it deleted? It is a known bug. At the very least,

Re: Bug#1055907: nmu: libalien-wxwidgets-perl_0.69+dfsg-6+b3

On Thu, 23 May 2024, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Hi, (debian-boot@, currently missing daily builds are the results of the #1071547/#1071548 pair.) Scott Talbert (2023-11-19): On Sat, 18 Nov 2023, Cyril Brulebois wrote: I was trying to suggest filing both in the same request, to have them

Re: Bug#1055907: nmu: libalien-wxwidgets-perl_0.69+dfsg-6+b3

Hi, (debian-boot@, currently missing daily builds are the results of the #1071547/#1071548 pair.) Scott Talbert (2023-11-19): > On Sat, 18 Nov 2023, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > > I was trying to suggest filing both in the same request, to have > > them scheduled in one go. > > I tried to figure

Re: Are follow-up steps for Lomiri desktop required?

On Mi 22 Mai 2024 17:50:06 CEST, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Mike Gabriel (2024-05-22): The Lomiri Operating Environment packaging for Debian is currently seeing quite a boot because we have found a sponsor that finance the related work. Good one! /me grins, s/boot/boost/, of

Re: Are follow-up steps for Lomiri desktop required?

Mike Gabriel (2024-05-22): > The plan is indeed to propose Lomiri as possible selection for a > desktop environment in D-I. > > Unfortunately, I don't know what steps are required to get Lomiri in. > Neither do I know who has a say in this, where it gets decided what > gets included as installer

Re: Are follow-up steps for Lomiri desktop required?

Hi Roland, (Cc:ing Guido who also works on Lomiri in Debian with correct now) On Mi 22 Mai 2024 16:50:02 CEST, Roland Clobus wrote: Hello installer team, I've noticed that (currently as draft) preparations [1] are ongoing to add Lomiri as task-lomiri-desktop into task-desktop. Is it

Re: Re-planning for 12.6

Hi, Jonathan Wiltshire (2024-04-21): > Too late now in any case. SRMs will regroup and decide whether we push > for one in May or just wait for June anyway. June is 10 days away. Do we have any kind of tentative schedule? Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois (k...@debian.org)

Re: DD application (Re: Next attempt to add Blends to Debian installer)

Hi, Cyril Brulebois wrote (Sat, 11 May 2024 22:07:44 +0200): > You're definitely acquainted with the a bunch of things in the installer > ecosystem, you're also knowledgeable about l10n topics, and you're > definitely an excellent team player. > > As far as I'm concerned, the only bug is that

Re: Next attempt to add Blends to Debian installer

Hi, Cyril Brulebois wrote (Sun, 12 May 2024 08:54:11 +0200): > Keeping the whole git history of tasksel without its tag is probably > fine, in case anyone needs to dig up why this thing is done that way, > but I'm not sure we should keep tasksel entries in debian/changelog; I > would probably

Re: Next attempt to add Blends to Debian installer

Hallo wieder, TL;DR = blendsel looks uploadable, even if that mail looks long and full of nitpicks, that's all they are: minor things. A bunch of them being in passing comments about tasksel itself. ;) Holger Wansing (2024-05-09): > - I adapted tasksel, to become an installer for Debian pure

Re: Next attempt to add Blends to Debian installer

Philip Hands writes: > which when tested on openQA looks like this: > > https://openqa.debian.net/tests/260723 I got bored waiting for the timeout, so sent that mail before the job had ended. The bit you want to see is: https://openqa.debian.net/tests/260723#step/grub/3 Cheers, Phil. --

Re: DD application (Re: Next attempt to add Blends to Debian installer)

On Sat, May 11, 2024 at 10:07:44PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: >Hi, > >Holger Wansing (2024-05-10): >> I know you repeatedly suggested this. Especially every time I ask for >> more packages to get dm permissions for :-)) > >Just in case that's not clear: I'm not trying to get rid of you as if

Re: DD application (Re: Next attempt to add Blends to Debian installer)

Hi, Holger Wansing (2024-05-10): > I know you repeatedly suggested this. Especially every time I ask for > more packages to get dm permissions for :-)) Just in case that's not clear: I'm not trying to get rid of you as if you were a burden (which you're clearly not), I'm suggesting you get

Re: Next attempt to add Blends to Debian installer

Hi Holger, Well done for deciding to put your shoulder to this old rock, I think we've got a pretty good chance of getting to the top of the mountain this time :-) Holger Wansing writes: > I did some testing in d-i, however that's tricky: > testing is problematic as long as the new blendsel

Re: Reword non-free-firmware description

Hi, Holger Wansing wrote (Sat, 4 May 2024 13:28:41 +0200): > Hi, > > Holger Wansing wrote (Wed, 1 May 2024 17:02:10 +0200): > > What to do about this MR regarding rewording of (non-free) firmware > > description ? > > https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/apt-setup/-/merge_requests/15 > >

Re: Next attempt to add Blends to Debian installer

Hi Holger, thanks a lot for your effort. Its really appreciated and very valuable for the Blends effort. Am Thu, May 09, 2024 at 11:05:28PM +0200 schrieb Holger Wansing: > Holger Wansing wrote (Tue, 13 Feb 2024 23:43:35 +0100): > > could we just "copy tasksel with its UI and infrastructure"

Re: DD application (Re: Next attempt to add Blends to Debian installer)

On Fri, 2024-05-10 at 09:31 +0200, Holger Wansing wrote: > My problem with this: > am I really capable of being a DD? You might remember that I am not a > programmer, I have no real skills in this direction. > I can do some scripting, gained by self-learning, but that does not make > a programmer

DD application (Re: Next attempt to add Blends to Debian installer)

Hi, Cyril Brulebois wrote (Fri, 10 May 2024 09:00:39 +0200): > Holger Wansing (2024-05-10): > > Now blendsel being moved to installer-team, would you mind giving me > > dm permissions, so I can upload? Thanks > > I seem to recall that only works for existing packages? Ah ok, yes that makes

Re: Next attempt to add Blends to Debian installer

Holger Wansing (2024-05-10): > Now blendsel being moved to installer-team, would you mind giving me > dm permissions, so I can upload? Thanks I seem to recall that only works for existing packages? May I suggest to think about turning your DD account into a non-non-uploading one? :) Cheers,

Re: Next attempt to add Blends to Debian installer

Hi, Cyril Brulebois wrote (Thu, 9 May 2024 23:18:06 +0200): > > Would the installer-team be ok with taking blendsel under its umbrella, > > as tasksel is, to get it uploaded? > > Looks good to me. Now blendsel being moved to installer-team, would you mind giving me dm permissions, so I can

Re: Next attempt to add Blends to Debian installer

Hallo Holger, Holger Wansing (2024-05-09): > Holger Wansing wrote (Tue, 13 Feb 2024 23:43:35 +0100): > > could we just "copy tasksel with its UI and infrastructure" into a > > new package (I name it 'blends-di-tasks' here), which has all the > > blends listed, and add one entry to tasksel with

Re: Next attempt to add Blends to Debian installer

Hi, Holger Wansing wrote (Tue, 13 Feb 2024 23:43:35 +0100): > could we just "copy tasksel with its UI and infrastructure" into a new > package > (I name it 'blends-di-tasks' here), which has all the blends listed, and add > one entry to tasksel with a name like "Debian Pure Blends" or

Re: Bug#1070706: gtk4 udeb has unsatisfiable dependencies

Control: severity 1070706 normal Control: severity 1070714 normal On Tue, 07 May 2024 at 22:53:33 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > Simon McVittie (2024-05-07): > > do the release/installer teams consider udeb dependencies > > on non-udeb packages, by udebs that d-i does not currently need or use,

Re: Bug#1070706: gtk4 udeb has unsatisfiable dependencies

Hi Simon, Simon McVittie (2024-05-07): > Looking at the d-i Packages.gz for amd64, the only other source > package that has picked up the bad libpng16-16t64-udeb dependency > seems to be matchbox-keyboard, which needs a sourceful upload to fix an > implicit-declarations FTBFS anyway, therefore

Re: Bug#1070706: gtk4 udeb has unsatisfiable dependencies

On Tue, 07 May 2024 at 22:02:12 +0200, Paul Gevers wrote: > On 07-05-2024 7:49 p.m., Simon McVittie wrote: > > The version in testing, 4.12.5+ds-3, has the same dependencies, so this > > is not a regression. > > Is it? It seems that the version in unstable depends on libpng16-16t64-udeb > where

Re: Bug#1070706: gtk4 udeb has unsatisfiable dependencies

Hi, On 07-05-2024 7:49 p.m., Simon McVittie wrote: The version in testing, 4.12.5+ds-3, has the same dependencies, so this is not a regression. Is it? It seems that the version in unstable depends on libpng16-16t64-udeb where the version in testing depends on libpng16-16-udeb. The later

Re: Bug#1070706: gtk4 udeb has unsatisfiable dependencies

Control: tags -1 + d-i Control: found -1 4.12.5+ds-3 Control: retitle -1 gtk4 udeb has unsatisfiable dependencies Control: clone -1 -2 Control: retitle -2 libvte-2.91-0-udeb depends on both GTK 3 and GTK 4 Control: reassign -2 src:vte2.91 0.75.92-1 On Tue, 07 May 2024 at 15:44:02 +0100, Peter

Processed: Re: Bug#1053678: partman-crypto: Requires separate /boot partition, even if not required

Processing control commands: > tags -1 patch Bug #1053678 [partman-crypto] partman-crypto: Requires separate /boot partition, even if not required Added tag(s) patch. -- 1053678: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1053678 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org

Re: Bug#1043226: debian-installer: Please consider moving root user setup to expert install, or change text

With latest user-setup upload 1.97, this has been dealed with, so closing. -- Holger Wansing PGP-Fingerprint: 496A C6E8 1442 4B34 8508 3529 59F1 87CA 156E B076

Re: Reword non-free-firmware description

Hi, Holger Wansing wrote (Wed, 1 May 2024 17:02:10 +0200): > What to do about this MR regarding rewording of (non-free) firmware > description ? > https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/apt-setup/-/merge_requests/15 > > Should something be done there? Any objections against applying this,

Re: Making trixie debootstrap-able again?

Hi, Cyril Brulebois (2024-04-26): > I'm not sure how we reached this situation but there are a bunch of > packages in trixie that are not in a suitable state. To reproduce, a > simple `debootstrap trixie /tmp/trixie` on amd64 is sufficient. That works again, presumably following the

Processed: Re: Bug#1060422: partman-crypto: add support for new cryptsetup options for opal/sed

Processing control commands: > tags -1 pending Bug #1060422 [src:partman-crypto] partman-crypto: add support for new cryptsetup options for opal/sed Added tag(s) pending. -- 1060422: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1060422 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact

Re: Reword non-free-firmware description

What to do about this MR regarding rewording of (non-free) firmware description ? https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/apt-setup/-/merge_requests/15 Should something be done there? Holger -- Holger Wansing PGP-Fingerprint: 496A C6E8 1442 4B34 8508 3529 59F1 87CA 156E B076

Re: Making trixie debootstrap-able again?

hi kibi, fwiw, bootstraping trixie still works using mmdebstrap, while it fails with debootstrap and cdebootstrap. I've notified #-release about the debootstrap breakage on the 24th and added that mmdebstrap was still working on the 25th...

Processed: Re: Bug#1069791: console-setup: Build larger console fonts for HiDPI/accessibility with future 6.9 kernels

Processing control commands: > forcemerge -1 816111 Bug #1069791 [console-setup] console-setup: Build larger console fonts for HiDPI/accessibility with future 6.9 kernels Bug #816111 [console-setup] Larger font variants for HiDPI displays Bug #816111 [console-setup] Larger font variants for

Processed: Re: Bug#1069791: console-setup: Build larger console fonts for HiDPI/accessibility with future 6.9 kernels

Processing control commands: > forcemerge -1 816111 Bug #1069791 [console-setup] console-setup: Build larger console fonts for HiDPI/accessibility with future 6.9 kernels Bug #1069791 [console-setup] console-setup: Build larger console fonts for HiDPI/accessibility with future 6.9 kernels

Re: Making trixie debootstrap-able again?

Cyril Brulebois (2024-04-26): > Anyway, I wanted to see if suggesting (I wouldn't go as far as requesting > because I'm really not sure this would be the right course of action, more > details below) a new binNMU of coreutils within testing would be > sufficient to make trixie debootstrap-able

Re: udhcpc search domain

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. I wasn't sure it required a bug report since it's not really a bug but maybe more of a feature request ? Here is the bug report link: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1069897 Thanks again

Re: udhcpc search domain

Hi Frédéric, Frédéric Guyot (2024-04-26): > That's great, thank you for your fast response/fix. > Just need to update netcfg now. Should I create a new post on the mailing > list ? The “request something on a list and that works out” is more of an exception than the rule. To ensure proper

Re: Re: udhcpc search domain

That's great, thank you for your fast response/fix. Just need to update netcfg now. Should I create a new post on the mailing list ?

Re: debian-installer/netcfg: Netplan support feedback

Hi Lukas, Lukas Märdian (2024-04-25): > Turns out d-i was unable to finish the installation, due to > installability issues of packages in the target system, especially > systemd-sysv vs libssl3 in this case. The archive is still very much > in flux and this is probably also why we still see d-i

Re: Bug#1060134: kmod-udeb vs busybox-udeb: agree on who ships depmod

Marco d'Itri (2024-04-26): > On Apr 26, Michael Tokarev wrote: > > > So, should I disable module utils in busybox-udeb now? > I think so. I haven't gotten any requests / seen any reasons to keep it; so, yes, please feel free to remove it whenever is convenient for you. > > Is kmod udeb ready

Re: udhcpc search domain

26.04.2024 13:24, Frédéric Guyot wrote: After looking at this a bit more closely , it seems that netcfg is calling udhcpc with  limited set options. see here: https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/netcfg/-/blob/master/dhcp.c#L38

Re: udhcpc search domain

After looking at this a bit more closely , it seems that netcfg is calling udhcpc with limited set options. see here: https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/netcfg/-/blob/master/dhcp.c#L38 We would just need to add "search" to this list of options and update the

Re: Bug#1060134: kmod-udeb vs busybox-udeb: agree on who ships depmod

Ok, I'm removing whole modutils from busybox udeb (besides depmod, this is lsmod, insmod, rmmod, and modprobe). All these are provided by kmod-udeb as far as I can see (as symlinks to kod). -- GPG Key transition (from rsa2048 to rsa4096) since 2024-04-24. New key: rsa4096/61AD3D98ECDF2C8E

Re: Bug#1060134: kmod-udeb vs busybox-udeb: agree on who ships depmod

On Apr 26, Michael Tokarev wrote: > So, should I disable module utils in busybox-udeb now? I think so. > Is kmod udeb ready and used in d-i already, or does it need some > prep first? AFAIK it works. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: debian-installer/netcfg: Netplan support feedback

Hello Cyril, Phil and others, Am 20.02.24 um 02:28 schrieb Cyril Brulebois: I'll try and get around to testing this soon-ish, then merge and upload if that goes fine. Thanks for the helpful discussion we've had so far on this topic! I've rebuild a new image today locally, to re-test my

Re: Re-planning for 12.6

On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 05:44:48PM +0100, Andy Simpkins wrote: > > On 21/04/2024 01:57, Steve McIntyre wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 05:41:13PM +0100, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 10:58:41PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > > > > Hiya! > > > > > > > > Not wanting to

Re: Re-planning for 12.6

On 21/04/2024 01:57, Steve McIntyre wrote: On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 05:41:13PM +0100, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 10:58:41PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: Hiya! Not wanting to pester *too* much, but where are we up to? Right now I can still have 27th April on the cards

Re: Re-planning for 12.6

as i indicated on IRC 27th April works for me May does not really work for me however Den sön 21 apr. 2024 kl 02:58 skrev Steve McIntyre : > > On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 05:41:13PM +0100, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > >On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 10:58:41PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > >> Hiya! > >> >

Re: Re-planning for 12.6

On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 05:41:13PM +0100, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 10:58:41PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > > Hiya! > > > > Not wanting to pester *too* much, but where are we up to? > > > > Right now I can still have 27th April on the cards but we're missing FTP and

Re: Re-planning for 12.6

On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 05:41:13PM +0100, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: >On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 10:58:41PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: >> Hiya! >> >> Not wanting to pester *too* much, but where are we up to? >> > >Right now I can still have 27th April on the cards but we're missing FTP and >press.

Re: Re-planning for 12.6

On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 10:58:41PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > Hiya! > > Not wanting to pester *too* much, but where are we up to? > Right now I can still have 27th April on the cards but we're missing FTP and press. It's next week, we'd have to know this weekend and get frozen. Mark

Re: Re-planning for 12.6

Hiya! Not wanting to pester *too* much, but where are we up to? On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 10:53:49PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: >On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 01:07:27PM +0100, Adam Barratt wrote: >>Hi, >> >>As we had to postpone 12.6, let's look at alternative dates. >> >>April 13th >>- Not great for

Re: Bug#1069099: binNMUs to fix mtdev-using udebs

Cyril Brulebois (2024-04-16): > Please consider binNMU-ing both packages against libmtdev-dev (>= 1.1.6-1.2) > on all archs, provided that doesn't interfere with the whole 64-bit time_t > transition: > - libinput10 That ought to read: - libinput Sorry about that. > -

Processed: Re: base-files: EFI System Partition should mount on /efi not /boot/efi

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > reassign 1055583 debian-installer Bug #1055583 [base-files] base-files: EFI System Partition should mount on /efi not /boot/efi Bug reassigned from package 'base-files' to 'debian-installer'. Ignoring request to alter found versions of bug

Re: base-files: EFI System Partition should mount on /efi not /boot/efi

reassign 1055583 debian-installer thanks Dear debian-installer people: In this bug report, I'm asked to provide /efi as a mount point for the EFI partition. Given that base-files does not even contain /boot/efi (the supposedly "old" location), I believe this is a decision for you to make,

Re: Bug#1066071: mtdev: broken shlibs, leading to uninstallable udebs

Hi, Cyril Brulebois (2024-03-12): > Your NMU broke this package's shlibs. > > Before: > > libmtdev 1 libmtdev1 > udeb: libmtdev 1 libmtdev1-udeb > > After: > > libmtdev 1 libmtdev1t64 > > At the moment, at least the following package is broken: > > The following packages

Processed: Re: Bug#1068833: discover: A game installed via Discover doesn't start

Processing control commands: > reassign -1 plasma-discover 5.27.5-2 Bug #1068833 [discover] discover: A game installed via Discover doesn't start Bug reassigned from package 'discover' to 'plasma-discover'. No longer marked as found in versions discover/2.1.2-10. Ignoring request to alter fixed

Re: Bug#1060134: kmod-udeb vs busybox-udeb: agree on who ships depmod

Hi, Marco d'Itri (2024-04-09): > Yes. Nowadays kmod has many more features related to compressed modules > and verification of signatures. > Can we agree that kmod should provide these programs for d-i? > Or can the d-i maintainers just tell us what they want? I meant to come back to this

Re: Bug#1060134: kmod-udeb vs busybox-udeb: agree on who ships depmod

On Jan 06, Michael Tokarev wrote: > Yes, some utils in busybox aren't as good as regular implementations. For Yes. Nowadays kmod has many more features related to compressed modules and verification of signatures. Can we agree that kmod should provide these programs for d-i? Or can the d-i

Processed: Re: Bug#1068637: apt does not always install Recommends

Processing control commands: > reassign 1068637 debian-installer Bug #1068637 [debian-installer] apt does not always install Recommends Bug #931283 [debian-installer] base-installer doesn't install Recommends for most packages Bug #1068560 [debian-installer] "Recommends: thin-provisioning-tools"

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >