Debian installer build: failed or old builds
Debian installer build overview --- Failed or old builds: * FAILED BUILD: amd64 May 09 00:04 buildd@barber build_cdrom_isolinux http://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/amd64/daily/build_cdrom_isolinux.log * FAILED BUILD: amd64 May 09 00:05 buildd@barber build_cdrom_gtk http://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/amd64/daily/build_cdrom_gtk.log * FAILED BUILD: amd64 May 09 00:05 buildd@barber build_cdrom-xen http://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/amd64/daily/build_cdrom-xen.log * FAILED BUILD: amd64 May 09 00:05 buildd@barber build_netboot http://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/amd64/daily/build_netboot.log * FAILED BUILD: amd64 May 09 00:05 buildd@barber build_netboot-gtk http://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/amd64/daily/build_netboot-gtk.log * FAILED BUILD: amd64 May 09 00:05 buildd@barber build_netboot-xen http://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/amd64/daily/build_netboot-xen.log * FAILED BUILD: amd64 May 09 00:06 buildd@barber build_hd-media http://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/amd64/daily/build_hd-media.log * FAILED BUILD: amd64 May 09 00:06 buildd@barber build_hd-media_gtk http://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/amd64/daily/build_hd-media_gtk.log * FAILED BUILD: i386 May 09 00:04 buildd@biber build_cdrom_isolinux http://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/i386/daily/build_cdrom_isolinux.log * FAILED BUILD: i386 May 09 00:05 buildd@biber build_cdrom_gtk http://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/i386/daily/build_cdrom_gtk.log * FAILED BUILD: i386 May 09 00:05 buildd@biber build_cdrom-xen http://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/i386/daily/build_cdrom-xen.log * FAILED BUILD: i386 May 09 00:05 buildd@biber build_netboot http://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/i386/daily/build_netboot.log * FAILED BUILD: i386 May 09 00:05 buildd@biber build_netboot-gtk http://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/i386/daily/build_netboot-gtk.log * FAILED BUILD: i386 May 09 00:05 buildd@biber build_netboot-xen http://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/i386/daily/build_netboot-xen.log * FAILED BUILD: i386 May 09 00:05 buildd@biber build_hd-media http://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/i386/daily/build_hd-media.log * FAILED BUILD: i386 May 09 00:06 buildd@biber build_hd-media_gtk http://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/i386/daily/build_hd-media_gtk.log * FAILED BUILD: ia64 May 09 00:12 buildd@alkman build_cdrom http://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/ia64/daily/build_cdrom.log * FAILED BUILD: ia64 May 09 00:12 buildd@alkman build_netboot http://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/ia64/daily/build_netboot.log * FAILED BUILD: powerpc May 09 00:04 buildd@praetorius build_powerpc_cdrom http://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/powerpc/daily/build_powerpc_cdrom.log * FAILED BUILD: powerpc May 09 00:04 buildd@praetorius build_powerpc_netboot http://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/powerpc/daily/build_powerpc_netboot.log * FAILED BUILD: powerpc May 09 00:04 buildd@praetorius build_powerpc_netboot-gtk http://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/powerpc/daily/build_powerpc_netboot-gtk.log * FAILED BUILD: powerpc May 09 00:04 buildd@praetorius build_powerpc_hd-media http://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/powerpc/daily/build_powerpc_hd-media.log * FAILED BUILD: powerpc May 09 00:04 buildd@praetorius build_powerpc64_cdrom http://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/powerpc/daily/build_powerpc64_cdrom.log * FAILED BUILD: powerpc May 09 00:04 buildd@praetorius build_powerpc64_netboot http://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/powerpc/daily/build_powerpc64_netboot.log * FAILED BUILD: powerpc May 09 00:04 buildd@praetorius build_powerpc64_netboot-gtk http://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/powerpc/daily/build_powerpc64_netboot-gtk.log * FAILED BUILD: s390 May 09 00:01 buildd@zandonai build_generic http://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/s390/daily/build_generic.log * FAILED BUILD: s390 May 09 00:01 buildd@zandonai build_tape http://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/s390/daily/build_tape.log * OLD BUILD:s390x May 04 00:01 buildd@zemlinsky build_generic http://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/s390x/daily/build_generic.log * OLD BUILD:s390x May 04 00:01 buildd@zemlinsky build_tape http://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/s390x/daily/build_tape.log * FAILED BUILD: sparc May 09 00:09 buildd@sompek build_cdrom http://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/sparc/daily/build_cdrom.log * FAILED BUILD: sparc May 09 00:10 buildd@sompek build_netboot http://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/sparc/daily/build_netboot.log * FAILED BUILD: sparc May 09 00:10 buildd@sompek build_miniiso http://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/
Bug#706989: Please add support for Ubuntu saucy
On Mittwoch, 8. Mai 2013, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Instead any > Ubuntu release that doesn't have a specific config should fall back to > a default ubuntu config. > > Similary any Debian release should have a fallback to a default Debian > config. so when debootstrap is being called to debootstrap "bonkers", how should it know whether thats the new Debian or Ubuntu release name? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
lilo uefi stops installer
I just bought a new ultrabook: Toshiba Portege Z930-145: http://www.pccomponentes.com/toshiba_portege_z930_145_i5_3317u_4gb_128gb_ssd_13_3_.html(sorry I can't find the specifications in english) I've managed to configure the UEFI to load from a USB and disable secure boot. I've been also capable of installing an ubuntu (although I had to use boot-repair to make grub work). But I want to install Debian. Ive used this image: firmware-7.0.0-amd64-netinst The installation starts correctly, and I've used unetbootin to put the iso in the USB. But when I arrive to the step configuring packet manager, it stops there. If I select that step again, it just appears the same step over and over again, as if the menu wasn't working. If I press ctrl+alt+F4, I arrive to what I guess is syslog, where I can read: lilo-installer: LILO not usable on EFI PCs without BIOS compatibility; use grub-efi I cannot do the next step either "select and install programs". I can continue to installing grub in a hard drive. It then continues the installation and finishes. I then boot my computer, but grub doesn't load. I've been able to install wheezy on a virtual machine without any issues, but not in the host. I don't know what else to do. I think it is probably a bug, but I don't know how to contact Debian about this. Is this the correct mailing list? Thank you for your hard work
Re: Wheezy size
Richard Owlett wrote:
> OK, it is a hot button issue with me as I'm on dialup. Causes me to
> wait until DVD's are available from vendors.
I don't understand how having or not having DVD isos on the Debian ftp
site affects you. You say you are on dialup. You are not going to be
able to download those extra 7 DVDs worth of iso even if they were
available. Therefore having them as an iso on the Debian site can't
help you anyway. Even if they were there you could not use them.
I also know from previous correspondence with you that you have
requirements for specific point release versions of Debian. It is
unlikely that the specific point release version you desire will be
available after the next point release is made.
> I've a physically small install of squeeze and I seem to recall
> loading something from DVD 8 or 9.
You loaded "something". Very likely. But would that not have been
most efficiently downloade over the dialup for just that single
package? Tens of thousands of packages. You need something from the
large set of them. Just download that single something?
I will also suggest apt-cacher-ng as being a good tool to cache
downloaded debs for multiple installs so that they never need to be
transported twice.
> I will wait for the full set of DVD's to be available. For my
> personal wants/needs/preferences/quirks that is the best solution
> and definitely worth the {cost}/{hassle removed}.
Or if you have a location with a faster than dialup internet
connection, a buddy, a library, you could make your own using
jigdo-lite. We have conversed about this before. I wrote up notes in
debian-user for you about it.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2013/03/msg00667.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2013/03/msg00672.html
The DVD images are available to be created easily for the users who
need them.
> Raises the question "Will the complete set be available from
> vendor/vendors listed at http://www.debian.org/CD/vendors/ ?"
I hope that many vendors will make the full set of DVDs available.
But you would need to ask them those specific questions. It might
prompt them to make them available knowing that there are users with
your needs that would purchase them. It might speed them along.
Bob
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Wheezy size
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
[snip]
On the other hand if you wait a bit and then buy e.g. DVD images 1-3
you can update 95% of your system from that and download the remaining
5% over even a slot internet. That is probably better than spending
money on a full 10 disk DVD set. Check which packages you have
installed and on which DVDs they are to see which images are worth
buying.
I will wait for the full set of DVD's to be available. For
my personal wants/needs/preferences/quirks that is the best
solution and definitely worth the {cost}/{hassle removed}.
Raises the question "Will the complete set be available from
vendor/vendors listed at http://www.debian.org/CD/vendors/ ?"
--
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/518a7ec2.3030...@cloud85.net
RFC: Please lift all unblock-udebs
Hi folks, for the time being, I think I'll concentrate on preparing wheezy r1. I also think we can live without a d-i release in the next few weeks, so possible transient breakages in udeb-producing packages right now shouldn't be much of an issue. Consequently, I can't think of a reason why we should keep any unblock-udeb for the time being. Of course, I'm all ears if anyone has a different opinion. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Wheezy size -- only 3 DVD ISO image files listed instead of 10
On Tue, 7 May 2013 21:23:38 +0200 Holger Wansing wrote: > Hi, > > Mariano Lazzaro wrote: > > Hi! I've seen today that Wheezy was officially released 2 days ago! > > Great news! > > > > There is something that I cannot understand, why does this release fit > > on 3 DVDs? (at least for AMD64 arch) > > > > But on the debian main site says over 37500 packages, and I'm using > > Debian 6 which has 29000 packages and it's 8 DVDs long. > > > > So, is this Debian 7 release "thinner" than its predecessor or are you > > using some "new and nasty" compression algorithm to get the 37500 > > packages on 3 DVDs? (I ask out of ignorance) > > There are 3 DVDs listed on > http://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/7.0.0/amd64/iso-dvd/ > so far you are right. > > But following the jigdo link to > http://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/7.0.0/amd64/jigdo-dvd/ > I see 10 DVDs. > > So this is probably a case for debian-cd? (in CC) > > > Cheers > Holger Hello That „nasty compression” is called jigdo and it's not new at all. ;-) More details here: http://www.debian.org/CD/faq/#not-all-images Regards -- Mateusz Poszwa -- 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/20130508171654.552b120f@debelianear
Re: Wheezy size
On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 02:49:35PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 01:45:51PM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:
> > *BAD THINKING!*
> > OK, it is a hot button issue with me as I'm on dialup. Causes me to
> > wait until DVD's are available from vendors.
> > I've a physically small install of squeeze and I seem to recall
> > loading something from DVD 8 or 9.
> > It's a certain company on west coast that's notorious for telling
> > customer what they should want.
> > [Primary reason I no longer purchase their product.]
> > {There's also a Debian based distro which is falling into that
> > pattern. }
>
> Well jigdo is still there as an option.
>
> So no it isn't bad thinking. It is entirely correct for most people and
> for the few that have slow or no connection available, there is a more
> efficient method (for the mirror network) to handle the rare person taht
> wants actual media.
Unless you want to download on one system, burn the DVD and take it to
another with no (or unbearable slow) internet downloading the DVDs is
not a good option. Simply updating directly will download far less.
And if you want to update more than one system then use a http proxy
or apt cacher so every common package is only downloaded once.
On the other hand if you wait a bit and then buy e.g. DVD images 1-3
you can update 95% of your system from that and download the remaining
5% over even a slot internet. That is probably better than spending
money on a full 10 disk DVD set. Check which packages you have
installed and on which DVDs they are to see which images are worth
buying.
MfG
Goswin
--
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/20130508144141.GB17923@frosties
Re: Bug#706989: Please add support for Ubuntu saucy
One begins to wonder if "upstream" and "downstream" mean anything any more. Best, RL > On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 10:52:30AM -0600, Adam Conrad wrote: >> Package: debootstrap >> Version: 1.0.49 >> Severity: normal >> >> Subject says it all, really. Please add support for saucy, by >> adding >> it as a symlink to gutsy, like previous Ubuntu releases. >> >> Thanks, >> >> ... Adam > > Please don't do it that way. > > That most (all?) release are links to the same config shows that there > isn't a need for individual configs for each codename. Instead any > Ubuntu release that doesn't have a specific config should fall back to > a default ubuntu config. > > Similary any Debian release should have a fallback to a default Debian > config. > > That way debootstrap wouldn't need an update every time a new codename > is added and wouldn't need backports jsut to add a single link. > > MfG > Goswin > > > -- > 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/20130508143359.GA17923@frosties > > Peace, -- properclinic.com unclog courts go 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/c7448a638788569285410a43ec8b2ee2.squir...@webmail.robertlink.org
Re: Bug#706989: Please add support for Ubuntu saucy
On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 10:52:30AM -0600, Adam Conrad wrote: > Package: debootstrap > Version: 1.0.49 > Severity: normal > > Subject says it all, really. Please add support for saucy, by adding > it as a symlink to gutsy, like previous Ubuntu releases. > > Thanks, > > ... Adam Please don't do it that way. That most (all?) release are links to the same config shows that there isn't a need for individual configs for each codename. Instead any Ubuntu release that doesn't have a specific config should fall back to a default ubuntu config. Similary any Debian release should have a fallback to a default Debian config. That way debootstrap wouldn't need an update every time a new codename is added and wouldn't need backports jsut to add a single link. MfG Goswin -- 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/20130508143359.GA17923@frosties
Bug#707235: debian-installer: Debian Wheezy Stable (7.0.0-i386) installer fails on LVM2 over dm-crypt
Package: debian-installer Severity: normal This appears to be a regression bug. I have a Dell Inspiron 1720 (circa 2008) which I previously used as a work laptop. The drive was configured as follows: sda sda1 ext3 filesystem (for /boot) sda2 physical device for encryption (sda2_crypt) physical volume for LVM2 vg0-root (ext3) vg0-swap (ext3) vg0-home (ext3) This configuration installed quite nicely through the Debian installer menus for Squeeze. Yesterday, I pulled this laptop out of storage and attempted to wipe the installation, replacing it with a fresh Debian Wheezy configuration. The only difference in layout is that my attempt yesterday uses ext4 rather than ext3. Using this configuration with the Wheezy stable installer I downloaded yesterday, GRUB fails to install. I receive the following messages in the diagnostics console: /usr/sbin/grub-probe: error: no such disk. Auto-detection of a filesystem of /dev/mapper/vg0-root failed. I then reconsidered the use case for the laptop and decided to try without the encrypted drive. Eliminating that layer (but keeping LVM2) resulted in a successful installation. Let me know if I can provide any additional info. Thanks! :) -- System Information: Debian Release: 7.0 APT prefers stable APT policy: (700, 'stable'), (500, 'stable-updates') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-4-686-pae (SMP w/8 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (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/20130508130900.25057.51565.report...@thirtyseven.bahj.com
Re: default LUKS/LVM names
On 6 May 2013 06:04, Paul Wise wrote: > Hi all, > > The current default names for an LVM on LUKS setup are: > > _crypt > -root > -swap_1 > > I would like something more consistent like these: > > -crypt > -root > -swap > > Any thoughts? > Something consistent and sensible would be nice. Someone had a host / device name clash, and thus e.g. for LVM VG I added to use a suffix "-vg" in ubuntu and planning to push a similar change to debian, as otherwise unattended installations were failing and were not exactly unattended. ps. hostnames are often pre-assigned by dhcp in fully automated installations. Regards, Dmitrijs. -- 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/canbhluif9pb8qugbhzfp1kagec2at_jvu2rsusxn4hfekfy...@mail.gmail.com
