Processing of debian-installer-launcher_1_i386.changes
debian-installer-launcher_1_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: debian-installer-launcher_1.dsc debian-installer-launcher_1.tar.gz debian-installer-launcher_1_all.deb Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon (running on host franck.debian.org) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1ofsqk-0004md...@franck.debian.org
debian-installer-launcher_1_i386.changes is NEW
(new) debian-installer-launcher_1.dsc optional utils (new) debian-installer-launcher_1.tar.gz optional utils (new) debian-installer-launcher_1_all.deb optional utils Debian Installer desktop launcher This is a desktop launcher for Debian Installer images. It is intended to be used on Debian Live systems. . You probably do not want to install this package onto a non-live system, although it will do no harm. Changes: debian-installer-launcher (1) unstable; urgency=low . * Initial release, formerly known as live-installer-launcher. Override entries for your package: Announcing to debian-devel-chan...@lists.debian.org Your package contains new components which requires manual editing of the override file. It is ok otherwise, so please be patient. New packages are usually added to the override file about once a week. You may have gotten the distribution wrong. You'll get warnings above if files already exist in other distributions. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1ofsyg-000620...@franck.debian.org
debian-installer-launcher_1_i386.changes ACCEPTED
Accepted: debian-installer-launcher_1.dsc to main/d/debian-installer-launcher/debian-installer-launcher_1.dsc debian-installer-launcher_1.tar.gz to main/d/debian-installer-launcher/debian-installer-launcher_1.tar.gz debian-installer-launcher_1_all.deb to main/d/debian-installer-launcher/debian-installer-launcher_1_all.deb Override entries for your package: debian-installer-launcher_1.dsc - optional utils debian-installer-launcher_1_all.deb - optional utils Announcing to debian-devel-chan...@lists.debian.org Thank you for your contribution to Debian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1ofsnb-0007od...@franck.debian.org
Spam cleaning effort: July 2010
We're now in August, so it's time for our team of magic reviewers to work on July 2010 archives. More details on http://wiki.debian.org/DebianInstaller/SpamClean Note that, out of about 20-25 spams identified for June month, only 5 have been finally removed from the archive. It means that we probably need a few more DD's to look at signalled spam for the debian-boot mailing list through https://lists.debian.org/cgi-bin/review/review1.pl. If you're a DD, please think about it. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Spam cleaning effort: July 2010
On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 7:00 AM, Christian PERRIER bubu...@debian.org wrote: We're now in August, so it's time for our team of magic reviewers to work on July 2010 archives. More details on http://wiki.debian.org/DebianInstaller/SpamClean Note that, out of about 20-25 spams identified for June month, only 5 have been finally removed from the archive. It means that we probably need a few more DD's to look at signalled spam for the debian-boot mailing list through I disagree. I believe the above fact indicates that we need a better communication mechanism for reviewers, rather than more isolated and thus un-coordinated effort. For example, even with the first reviewer's hint that he found 14 spam, I was not able to duplicate reach that count despite several extra passes over the month. The simplest change I can think of is to allow people to see the list of messages that have been nominated by other reviewers. One way to do that would be to just make the information available. Another way to do that would be to create a collaboration page whereupon reviewers could deposit their nominations for the benefit of subsequent reviewers. Had I more authority that I am willing to assert unilaterally I would simply place the current month's list of nominees immediately after the monthly summary info on the spam cleaning page referenced above. https://lists.debian.org/cgi-bin/review/review1.pl. If you're a DD, please think about it. Why do the reviewers need to be DDs? -- Lee -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktinyjsuwgm3zizsighawhosyn1kk4ssyv9baz...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Spam cleaning effort: July 2010
On Sunday 01 August 2010, Lee Winter wrote: It means that we probably need a few more DD's to look at signalled spam for the debian-boot mailing list through I disagree. I believe the above fact indicates that we need a better communication mechanism for reviewers, rather than more isolated and thus un-coordinated effort. Christian's comment is more about the last stage of the removal process (the final review that can only be done by DDs) than the searching for and reporting of spam. I also don't think it's a big problem as the review will get done eventually. This current focus on getting the spam cleaned out within the shortest time possible is unnecessary. d-boot is already by far the cleanest list in the archives. For example, even with the first reviewer's hint that he found 14 spam, I was not able to duplicate reach that count despite several extra passes over the month. The simplest change I can think of is to allow people to see the list of messages that have been nominated by other reviewers. One way to do that would be to just make the information available. Another way to do that would be to create a collaboration page whereupon reviewers could deposit their nominations for the benefit of subsequent reviewers. I strongly disagree. The spam review process is purposely based on the fact that spam messages are reported independently. Coordinating the reporting of spam to the extend you are suggesting would defeat the safeguards explicitly built into the process. I'm all in favor of continuing the process I started last year, but there's absolutely no need to be obsessive about it. It is better that some spams are missed and left in the archive than that the process is abused. Cheers, FJP -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201008011410.50729.elen...@planet.nl
Re: Spam cleaning effort: July 2010
Quoting Frans Pop (elen...@planet.nl): I also don't think it's a big problem as the review will get done eventually. This current focus on getting the spam cleaned out within the shortest time possible is unnecessary. d-boot is already by far the cleanest list in the archives. The main point is not completing things in the shortest possible timeframe, but more being sure that we still have enough people working on both stages. Whether or not things are done immediately is of course irrelevant, though experience shows that repetitive processes that are regularly monitored are those who are less likely to vanish without anyone really noticing. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#586870: partman-base: use a system-specific default filesystem
Hello, Jeremie Koenig, le Wed 23 Jun 2010 06:53:23 +0200, a écrit : Currently the default filesystem is ext3 on all systems. However, Hurd only supports ext2 and kFreeBSD requires ufs as its root filesystem. The attached patch sets a system-specific default, provided none has been preseeded. +db_fget partman/default_filesystem seen +if [ $RET != false ]; then + exit 0 +fi + +case $(udpkg --print-os) in +kfreebsd) + db_set partman/default_filesystem ufs + ;; +hurd) + db_set partman/default_filesystem ext2 + ;; +esac + +db_fset partman/default_filesystem seen true So, what do people think about it? BSD people, too? Samuel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100801143017.gm4...@const.famille.thibault.fr
Processed: tagging 588761
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: tags 588761 + pending Bug #588761 [netcfg] netcfg: please include Hurd support Added tag(s) pending. thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 588761: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=588761 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/handler.s.c.12806733632929.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Processed: tagging 591103
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: tags 591103 + pending Bug #591103 [win32-loader] [INTL:da] Danish translation of the debconf templates win32-loader Added tag(s) pending. thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 591103: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=591103 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/handler.s.c.12806739336156.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Processed: tagging 513917
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: tags 513917 + pending Bug #513917 [win32-loader] win32-loader: [INTL:zh_TW] Updated Traditional Chinese (zh_TW) translation Added tag(s) pending. thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 513917: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=513917 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/handler.s.c.12806739546252.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Processed: tagging 586871
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: tags 586871 + pending Bug #586871 [partman-basicfilesystems] partman-basicfilesystems: please include Hurd support Added tag(s) pending. thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 586871: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=586871 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/handler.s.c.128067454311152.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Processed: tagging 588776
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: tags 588776 + pending Bug #588776 [base-installer] base-installer: please don't rely on /proc/mounts, which is not available on Hurd Added tag(s) pending. thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 588776: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=588776 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/handler.s.c.128067468312221.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Re: Bug#584538: libdebian-installer: problems on Hurd with poll()
Hello,
Jérémie Koenig, le Fri 04 Jun 2010 14:41:34 +0200, a écrit :
On Hurd, libdebian-installer gets stuck inside the internal_di_exec()
function. This is caused by the way poll() reports end-of-file, which
cannot be portably relied on.
The attach patch uses feof() instead of POLLHUP to detect it.
Index: packages/libdebian-installer/src/exec.c
===
--- packages/libdebian-installer/src/exec.c (revision 63370)
+++ packages/libdebian-installer/src/exec.c (working copy)
@@ -162,14 +162,12 @@
{
bool exit = false;
+/* Implementations of poll() deliver various combinations of POLLIN
and
+ POLLHUP on EOF. fgets() detects it and we check with feof() below.
+ References: http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2001/06/poll.html */
for (i = 0; i pipes; i++)
{
-/* References: http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2001/06/poll.html */
-#if defined(__FreeBSD_kernel__)
- if ((pollfds[i].revents POLLIN) (! (pollfds[i].revents
POLLHUP)))
-#else
- if (pollfds[i].revents POLLIN)
-#endif
+ if (pollfds[i].revents (POLLIN | POLLHUP))
{
while (fgets (line, sizeof (line), files[i].file) != NULL)
{
@@ -180,8 +178,8 @@
len--;
}
files[i].handler (line, len, io_user_data);
+ exit = true;
}
-exit = true;
}
}
@@ -189,7 +187,7 @@
continue;
for (i = 0; i pipes; i++)
- if (pollfds[i].revents POLLHUP)
+ if (feof(files[i].file))
exit = true;
if (exit)
This seems simpler to me. Could BSD people check they do not have bad
effects?
Samuel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100801150247.gn4...@const.famille.thibault.fr
Processed: tagging 587208
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: tags 587208 + pending Bug #587208 [win32-loader] [INTL:kk] Kazakh translation update Added tag(s) pending. thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 587208: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=587208 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/handler.s.c.128067483913535.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#586687: marked as done (debian-installer: build scripts can use outdated packages)
Your message dated Sun, 1 Aug 2010 17:20:21 +0200
with message-id 20100801152021.ga18...@const.famille.thibault.fr
and subject line Re: debian-installer: build scripts can use outdated packages
has caused the Debian Bug report #586687,
regarding debian-installer: build scripts can use outdated packages
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.)
--
586687: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=586687
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
---BeginMessage---
Package: debian-installer
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
Usertags: gsoc2010
Hello,
(my earlier email to debian-boot did not attract any comment, I'm
resubmitting this as a bug so as to document and keep track of it)
The get-packages script from installer/build/util/ uses sort | tail -1
to get the most recent version of a given udeb from apt.udeb/cache.
This may cause images to be built with outdated udebs.
The attached patch makes it use 'dpkg --compare-versions' instead.
Thanks,
--
Jeremie Koenig j...@jk.fr.eu.org
http://jk.fr.eu.org
Index: debian/changelog
===
--- debian/changelog (revision 63446)
+++ debian/changelog (working copy)
@@ -69,8 +69,11 @@
[ Otavio Salvador ]
* Move hppa, ia64, powerpc and s390 to linux 2.6.32 (ABI 5).
- -- Christian Perrier bubu...@debian.org Sun, 14 Feb 2010 17:06:27 +0100
+ [ Jeremie Koenig ]
+ * util/get-packages: fix selection of the most recent packages.
+ -- Jeremie Koenig j...@jk.fr.eu.org Thu, 17 Jun 2010 17:01:14 +0200
+
debian-installer (20100211) unstable; urgency=low
[ Frans Pop ]
Index: build/util/get-packages
===
--- build/util/get-packages (revision 63446)
+++ build/util/get-packages (working copy)
@@ -186,7 +186,13 @@
lnpkg() {
local pkg=$1; local dir=$2 debdir=$3
- local L=`find $dir -name ${pkg}_* 2/dev/null | sort | tail -n 1`
+ local L LV l lv
+ for l in `find $dir -name ${pkg}_* 2/dev/null`; do
+ lv=${l%_*}; lv=${lv##*_};
+ if dpkg --compare-versions $lv gt $LV; then
+ L=$l LV=$lv
+ fi
+ done
if [ -e $L ]; then
ln -f $L $debdir/$pkg.$TYPE
fi
---End Message---
---BeginMessage---
Version: 20100719
Patch got commited some time ago already.
---End Message---
Bug#489218: marked as done (win32-loader: [INTL:vi] Vietnamese program translation update)
Your message dated Sun, 1 Aug 2010 17:17:55 +0200 with message-id 97b3bb21e64c9df87fd90a4bcedfb11b.squir...@www.phpnet.org and subject line Vietnamese translation is updated, but not activated has caused the Debian Bug report #489218, regarding win32-loader: [INTL:vi] Vietnamese program translation update 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.) -- 489218: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=489218 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: win32-loader Version: Tags: l10n patch Severity: wishlist The updated Vietnamese translation for the program file: win32-loader Incidentally, are we using NSIS Unicode [1]? It provides UTF-8 support for Windows installers (and I've added a Vietnamese translation to it). translated and submitted by: Clytie Siddall Vietnamese Free-Software Translation Team http://vnoss.net/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=projects:l10n win32-loader_l10n_po_vi.po Description: Binary data [1] http://www.scratchpaper.com/---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- Version: 0.6.0~pre3 Hi, The uptodate Vietnamese translation file is in the win32-loader source package since 0.6.0~pre3 and has been updated several times since then, but had never (at least isn't now) been activated, as NSIS lacks Vietnamese support (Unicode NSIS does, but isn't in Debian). So I am hereby closing this bug; please re-open if you feel it is needed. Cheers, OdyX ---End Message---
Bug#455677: marked as done (win32-loader: [INTL:dz] Dzongkha program translation)
Your message dated Sun, 1 Aug 2010 17:21:57 +0200 with message-id afc5a846cfff8fe973bf24db7fc6429c.squir...@www.phpnet.org and subject line Dzongkha translation is updated, but not activated has caused the Debian Bug report #455677, regarding win32-loader: [INTL:dz] Dzongkha program translation 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.) -- 455677: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=455677 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: win32-loader Severity: wishlist Tags: patch l10n Dzongkha Translation for di level 2 win32-loader package -- System Information: Debian Release: 4.0 APT prefers stable APT policy: (500, 'stable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.6.18-4-686 Locale: LANG=en_US, LC_CTYPE=en_US (charmap=ISO-8859-1) # SOME DESCRIPTIVE TITLE. # Copyright (C) YEAR THE PACKAGE'S COPYRIGHT HOLDER # This file is distributed under the same license as the PACKAGE package. # FIRST AUTHOR em...@address, YEAR. # msgid msgstr Project-Id-Version: win32-loader_l10n_po.po\n Report-Msgid-Bugs-To: \n POT-Creation-Date: 2007-09-17 18:09+0200\n PO-Revision-Date: 2007-12-11 15:23+0530\n Last-Translator: Jurmey Rabgay jur_...@yahoo.com\n Language-Team: Dzongkha pgey...@dit.gov.bt\n MIME-Version: 1.0\n Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8\n Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit\n Plural-Forms: nplurals=2;plural=(n!=1);\n X-Poedit-Language: Dzongkha\n X-Poedit-Country: Bhutan\n X-Poedit-SourceCharset: utf-8\n #. translate: #. This must be a valid string recognised by Nsis. If your #. language is not yet supported by Nsis, please translate the #. missing Nsis part first. #. #: win32-loader.sh:36 #: win32-loader.c:39 msgid LANG_ENGLISH msgstr LANG_ENGLISH(_E) #. translate: #. This must be the string used by Windows to represent your #. language's charset. If you don't know, check [wine]/tools/wmc/lang.c, #. or http://www.microsoft.com/globaldev/reference/WinCP.mspx #. #. IMPORTANT: In the rest of this file, only the subset of UTF-8 that can be #. converted to this charset should be used. #: win32-loader.sh:52 msgid windows-1252 msgstr ཝིན་ཌཱསི་- ༡༢༥༢ #. translate: #. Charset used by NTLDR in your localised version of Windows XP. If you #. don't know, maybe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_page helps. #: win32-loader.sh:57 msgid cp437 msgstr སི་པི་༤༣༧ #. translate: #. The name of your language _in English_ (must be restricted to ascii) #: win32-loader.sh:67 msgid English msgstr ཨིང་ལིཤ་ #. translate: #. IMPORTANT: only the subset of UTF-8 that can be converted to NTLDR charset #. (e.g. cp437) should be used in this string. If you don't know which charset #. applies, limit yourself to ascii. #: win32-loader.sh:81 msgid Debian Installer msgstr ཌི་བི་ཡཱན་ གཞི་བཙུགས་པ་ #. translate: #. The nlf file for your language should be found in #. /usr/share/nsis/Contrib/Language files/ #. #: win32-loader.c:68 msgid English.nlf msgstr English.nlf #: win32-loader.c:71 msgid Debian-Installer Loader msgstr ཌི་བི་ཡཱན་-གཞི་བཙུགསཔ་ མངོན་གསལ་པ་ #: win32-loader.c:72 msgid Cannot find win32-loader.ini. msgstr win32-loader.ini འཚོལ་མ་ཐོབ་ #: win32-loader.c:73 msgid win32-loader.ini is incomplete. Contact the provider of this medium. msgstr win32-loader.ini འདི་ ཆ་ཚངམ་མེན་པས། བརྡ་ལམ་བྱིན་མི་དང་གཅིག་ཁར་འབྲེལ་བ་འཐབ། #: win32-loader.c:74 msgid This program has detected that your keyboard type is \$0\. Is this correct? msgstr ལས་རིམ་འདི་གིས་ ཁྱོད་ཀྱི་ལྡེ་སྒྲོམ་དབྱེ་བ་འདི་ \$0\ སྦེ་སྐྱོན་འཛིན་འབད་ནུག འདི་བདེན་ག? #: win32-loader.c:75 msgid Please send a bug report with the following information:\n \n - Version of Windows.\n - Country settings.\n - Real keyboard type.\n - Detected keyboard type.\n \n Thank you. msgstr གཤམ་འཁོད་བརྡ་དོན་དང་མཉམ་ རྐྱེན་གྱི་སྙན་ཞུ་ཅིག་ གཏང་གནང་:\n \n - ཝིན་ཌཱསི་ཐོན་རིམ།\n - རྒྱལ་ཁབ་ཀྱི་སྒྲིག་སྟངས།\n - ལྡེ་སྒྲོམ་གྱི་དབྱེ་བ་ངོ་མ།\n - སྐྱོན་འཛིན་བྱུང་ཡོད་པའི་ལྡེ་སྒྲོམ་དབྱེ་བ།\n \n བཀྲིན་ཆེ། #: win32-loader.c:76 msgid There doesn't seem to be enough free disk space in drive $c. For a complete desktop install, it is recommended to have at least 3 GB. If there is already a separate disk or partition to install Debian, or if you plan to replace Windows completely, you can safely ignore this warning. msgstr འདྲེན་འཕྲུལ་ $c ནང་ ཌིཀསི་ས་སྟོང་ལངམ་མེད་དོ་བཟུམ་ཅིག་འདུག། ཌེཀསི་ཊོཔ་ཆ་ཚང་ཅིག་གཞི་བཙུགས་འབད་ནི་ལུ་ ཉུང་མཐའ་ ཇི་བི་ ༣ དགོཔ་ཨིན། གལ་སྲིད་ག་དེམ་ཅིག་འབད་ ཌི་བི་ཡཱན་གཞི་བཙུགས་འབད་ནི་ལུ་ ཧེ་མ་ལས་ ཌིཀསི་ས་སྟོང་སོར་སོ་ ཡངན་ བར་བཅད་ཅིག་ཡོད་པ་ཅིན་ ཡང་ན་ ཝིན་ཌཱསི་ཡོངས་རྫོགས་སྦེ་ ཚབ་བཙུགས་འབད་ནི་ཨིན་པ་ཅིན་
Processed: tagging 511625
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: tags 511625 + pending Bug #511625 [win32-loader] [INTL:ast] Asturian win32-loader translation Added tag(s) pending. thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 511625: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=511625 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/handler.s.c.12806772162050.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Processing of live-installer_24_i386.changes
live-installer_24_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: live-installer_24.dsc live-installer_24.tar.gz live-installer_24_i386.udeb Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon (running on host franck.debian.org) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1ofaww-0003qb...@franck.debian.org
live-installer_24_i386.changes ACCEPTED
Accepted: live-installer_24.dsc to main/l/live-installer/live-installer_24.dsc live-installer_24.tar.gz to main/l/live-installer/live-installer_24.tar.gz live-installer_24_i386.udeb to main/l/live-installer/live-installer_24_i386.udeb Override entries for your package: live-installer_24.dsc - source debian-installer live-installer_24_i386.udeb - optional debian-installer Announcing to debian-devel-chan...@lists.debian.org Thank you for your contribution to Debian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1ofazg-0004if...@franck.debian.org
Bug#591277: debian-installer: Root LV created awfully small
Package: debian-installer Version: d-i Severity: minor I picked the netinst iso and installed Squeeze this weekend into a virtual machine (VirtualBox) using an 8 GB virtual hard drive. I decided to use LVM with seperate /home LV and had d-i decide on the LV sizes. d-i chose the size of the root LV to be about 2 GB, giving me just enough rope to hang myself. It ran out of disk space when I tried to install GNOME. This is of course my fault (I should have checked the LV sizes d-i suggested) but some sanity checks on LV / partition size would nevertheless make sense. Best regards Jan -- System Information: Debian Release: squeeze/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (500, 'testing') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-5-686 (SMP w/1 CPU core) Locale: LANG=de_DE.utf8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100801170829.2584.43489.report...@squeeze.heitkoetter.net
Bug#591278: debian-installer: confusing questions on GRUB installation
Package: debian-installer Severity: minor I installed squeeze using the netinst iso within VirtualBox. Late in the installation process there's some confusion about setting up GRUB. d-i asks me whether I want to proceed without installing GRUB. If I choose No, the question plainly pop up again. If I choose yes, d-i scans for other operating systems and, after that, asks me whether GRUB should be installed to MBR. From this point on, everything is fine. This behaviour is rather confusing, I don't understand why it asks me whether to proceed without GRUB installation in the first place. Best regards Jan -- System Information: Debian Release: squeeze/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (500, 'testing') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-5-686 (SMP w/1 CPU core) Locale: LANG=de_DE.utf8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100801171742.2677.89352.report...@squeeze.heitkoetter.net
Constantly Usable Testing BoF @ DebConf10
I'd like to invite d-i and debian-cd members who are attending DebConf to the Constantly Usable Testing BoF, Tuesday at 10:30. http://penta.debconf.org/dc10_schedule/events/681.en.html The purpose of the BoF is to finally explore whether it would make sense to implement the Constantly Usable Testing idea[1], ways to do it, and get feedback and advice from teams that could be affected by it. Some topics that might come up: * How would d-i install a snapshot of testing? (eg, some special temporary suite name) * Could having CUT releases of testing offload work that d-i is currently doing on beta releases? Or otherwise improve things by, eg, providing a snapshot for installation media to use? * Space/bandwidth/building of CUT CD images. -- see shy jo [1] http://kitenet.net/~joey/code/debian/cut signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#591277: debian-installer: Root LV created awfully small
retitle 591277 2GB is no longer enough for a single root partition retitle 591277 partman-auto-lvm thanks Quoting Jan Heitkötter (usenet...@heitkoetter.net): Package: debian-installer Version: d-i Severity: minor I picked the netinst iso and installed Squeeze this weekend into a virtual machine (VirtualBox) using an 8 GB virtual hard drive. I decided to use LVM with seperate /home LV and had d-i decide on the LV sizes. d-i chose the size of the root LV to be about 2 GB, giving me just enough rope to hang myself. It ran out of disk space when I tried to install GNOME. This is of course my fault (I should have checked the LV sizes d-i suggested) but some sanity checks on LV / partition size would nevertheless make sense. Ah, this is something we should have a look at, indeed, these default and minimum size for partitions. Thanks for reporting. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Processed: Re: Bug#591277: debian-installer: Root LV created awfully small
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: retitle 591277 2GB is no longer enough for a single root partition Bug #591277 [debian-installer] debian-installer: Root LV created awfully small Changed Bug title to '2GB is no longer enough for a single root partition' from 'debian-installer: Root LV created awfully small' retitle 591277 partman-auto-lvm Bug #591277 [debian-installer] 2GB is no longer enough for a single root partition Changed Bug title to 'partman-auto-lvm' from '2GB is no longer enough for a single root partition' thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 591277: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=591277 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/handler.s.c.128068470329582.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#591278: marked as done (debian-installer: confusing questions on GRUB installation)
Your message dated Sun, 1 Aug 2010 13:46:24 -0400 with message-id 20100801174624.gz24...@mykerinos.kheops.frmug.org and subject line Re: Bug#591278: debian-installer: confusing questions on GRUB installation has caused the Debian Bug report #591278, regarding debian-installer: confusing questions on GRUB installation 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.) -- 591278: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=591278 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: debian-installer Severity: minor I installed squeeze using the netinst iso within VirtualBox. Late in the installation process there's some confusion about setting up GRUB. d-i asks me whether I want to proceed without installing GRUB. If I choose No, the question plainly pop up again. If I choose yes, d-i scans for other operating systems and, after that, asks me whether GRUB should be installed to MBR. From this point on, everything is fine. This behaviour is rather confusing, I don't understand why it asks me whether to proceed without GRUB installation in the first place. Best regards Jan -- System Information: Debian Release: squeeze/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (500, 'testing') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-5-686 (SMP w/1 CPU core) Locale: LANG=de_DE.utf8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- Quoting Jan Heitkötter (usenet...@heitkoetter.net): Package: debian-installer Severity: minor I installed squeeze using the netinst iso within VirtualBox. Late in the installation process there's some confusion about setting up GRUB. d-i asks me whether I want to proceed without installing GRUB. If I choose No, the question plainly pop up again. If I choose yes, d-i scans for other operating systems and, after that, asks me whether GRUB should be installed to MBR. From this point on, everything is fine. This behaviour is rather confusing, I don't understand why it asks me whether to proceed without GRUB installation in the first place. All this more comes from the GRUB package(s) that are currently being polished by GRUB maintainers. I suggest closing the bug report as I'm not even sure that reassigning it to grub2 (or grub-legacy) would be anything but a hassle for the poor guy currently doing this (Hi Colin!). signature.asc Description: Digital signature ---End Message---
