Your message dated Mon, 13 Nov 2023 15:15:08 +0300
with message-id <a3808fbb-d362-4c2b-b25e-ccf6e359a...@tls.msk.ru>
and subject line Re: Bug#964579: lsblk not included in busybox version used
with installer
has caused the Debian Bug report #964579,
regarding lsblk not included in busybox version used with installer
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
964579: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=964579
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: busybox
Version: 1:1.30.1-4
Severity: wishlist
x-debbugs-cc: Russell Weber <rustyscottwe...@gmail.com>
submitter: Russell Weber <rustyscottwe...@gmail.com>
On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 02:43:43PM -0600, Russell Weber wrote:
> Package: busybox
> Version: 1:1.30.1-4
> Severity: wishlist
> lsblk is a very useful tool for understanding your current disks and block
> devices. It can be used to
> query lots of information including disk manufacturer, serial number, model
> number, the structure of your disks if the disk is already in use for
> another block device. Given that the installer has mission critical goals
> associated with the disks, it's a bit of a mystery that lsblk isn't
> included into the busy box implementation used in the installer. This is
> especially important when seeding automatic/unattended installs for debian
> since many of the seed files used will query information from disks in
> scripts using the "d-i partman/early_command string" of debconf. I can see
> that this issue has been raised in multiple places online: stack overflow,
> IRC. However, scanning older tickets, I was not able to find a ticket
> which raises the issue. Is there any reason that lsblk as a command is not
> included? As far as I can tell, the bloat size would only be around 20-40
> KiB in size. May I suggest that we start including the lsblk binaries in
> the next versions of Debian?
I hope this works out for a proper bugreport as intended.
cheers,
Holger
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Thu, 12 May 2022 12:02:54 -0700 (PDT) Metztli Information Technology
<jose....@metztli.com> wrote:
Niltze-
On Sun, May 8, 2022 at 2:06 PM Michael Tokarev <m...@tls.msk.ru> wrote:
> This applet is not written.
Busybox utilities have their limitations. For instance, I had to create
mount/umount UDEBs
because the d-i busybox equivalents would fail on Reiser4 SFRN4/SFRN5 file
systems when
installing Debian.
<
https://metztli.blog/media/blogs/calli/Bullseye-SFRN5/xonecuiltzin-5.13.19-reizer4-sfrn-5.1.3.mp4?mtime=1636642043
>
Accordingly, probably including an lsblk UDEB in d-i would likely be more
adequate, i.e.,
the last two(2) UDEBs -- which already exist -- are required for lsblk in d-i:
I still fail to see how one can include something which does not exist.
Once again: lsblk busybox applet is not written, it should be written
before it is possible to include it.
I'm closing this bugreport now, as there's no reason to keep it open.
/mjt
--- End Message ---
