Additional info:
I tested only with kernel2.4. I shall try 2.6 later on.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 03:00:32AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
I found bug.
No more serious one. But I made a minor feature enhancement.
If $CDROM_DEVICES is set to none, there will be no cdrom auto detect.
If $CDROM_DEVICES can be set to preseed cdrom device name.
This will be handy for
tags 265636 patch
On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 08:28:41AM +0100, Joey Hess wrote:
Osamu Aoki wrote:
Proposed ERRATA:
...
We have plenty of time to fix cdrom-detect before rc2 without resorting
to ugly errata like that. I'd rather turn off DMA for all CDs than have
that errata, personally.
OK.
I found bug.
If no IDE existed, it used to assign:
devices='/dev/cdroms/*'
That is bad. That section (needs to be)
# Auto detect CDROM by devfs
if [ -d /dev/cdroms ]; then
devices=$(echo /dev/cdroms/*|grep -v '*' || true)
else
devices=
fi
Also
if [ -n
I will put my new hacked RC1 image with bug fix
http://people.debian.org/~osamu/pub/sarge-i386-netinst-rc1-hacked-v2.iso
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 03:00:32AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
I found bug.
one more
log main loop: $imount out of $maxmount
# Is a cdrom (image) already mounted at /cdrom? Sanity check!
if [ ! -e /cdrom ] ; then
I need to reorder
# First run of cdrom-detect
mkdir
No, no. no. this was OK. Excuse me for noise.
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 07:43:06AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 03:00:32AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
I found bug.
one more
log main loop: $imount out of $maxmount
# Is a cdrom (image) already mounted at /cdrom?
Osamu Aoki wrote:
Proposed ERRATA:
--
In some CDROM drives such as the ones on the older Dell laptop PCs,
second detection may be successful. If you fail in mounting CD, you
simply run detect CDROM drive again from the menu. If reading CD fails
with installation log in vt4
Hi,
Executive summary:
1. Patch by Vincent McIntyre (Bug#265636) has good intent but buggy
as is. (I wish this type of syntax exists for fail function.)
2. My previous patch was not general enough.
3. My new patch here should work but intrusive at this moment.
(This can be better. fail
1. Patch by Vincent McIntyre (Bug#265636) has good intent but buggy
as is. (I wish this type of syntax exists for fail function.)
That was only a sketch, as I don't have a good understanding of how such
an error should be presented to the user by d-i.
I think the problem with
On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 09:54:53AM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. Patch by Vincent McIntyre (Bug#265636) has good intent but buggy
as is. (I wish this type of syntax exists for fail function.)
That was only a sketch, as I don't have a good understanding of how such
an error should
11 matches
Mail list logo
