[base-installer] [PATCH] Create DPKG_CONFDIR before putting files in it
--- library.sh | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) diff --git a/library.sh b/library.sh index e40b51c..a89d7db 100644 --- a/library.sh +++ b/library.sh @@ -181,6 +181,8 @@ Acquire::https::Verify-Peer false; EOT fi + [ ! -d $DPKG_CONFDIR ] mkdir -p $DPKG_CONFDIR + # Disable all syncing; it's unnecessary in an installation context, # and can slow things down quite a bit. # This file will be left in place until the end of the install. -- 1.8.5.3 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1393317227-31895-1-git-send-email-p...@debian.org
Re: [base-installer] [PATCH] Create DPKG_CONFDIR before putting files in it
Paul Wise p...@debian.org (2014-02-25): --- library.sh | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) diff --git a/library.sh b/library.sh index e40b51c..a89d7db 100644 --- a/library.sh +++ b/library.sh @@ -181,6 +181,8 @@ Acquire::https::Verify-Peer false; EOT fi + [ ! -d $DPKG_CONFDIR ] mkdir -p $DPKG_CONFDIR + # Disable all syncing; it's unnecessary in an installation context, # and can slow things down quite a bit. # This file will be left in place until the end of the install. Hmm, I guess this doesn't hurt; but from what I can see, bootstrap-base.postinst calls that function after having installed the base system, and dpkg ships this directory. Is that because of live-installer.postinst, which calls install_live_system instead? If that's the case, saying so in the commit message would be helpful (and would save people some digging). Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#739989: debian-installer-utils: log-output change breaks speech synthesis
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 09:10:38AM +0300, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Did you see my follow-up mail[1]? It looks to me it does not only trigger the espeakup hang, but a whole bunch of other hangs. I did, but without data I didn't have time to trawl through looking for them. I'm not asserting that the cause for this is by any means unique to espeakup. -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@debian.org] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140225092158.gs6...@riva.ucam.org
Bug#739855: partman-lvm: Irreproducible metadata size
st s...@e-head.net (2014-02-25): Wouter Verhelst wrote: The problem seems to be that partman-lvm created PVs with only 195584 units-used-by-pvck allocated for metadata. However, there is no way to create PVs with less than 1047552 units-used-by-pvck with the standard pvcreate. Not true, as partman-lvm uses the standard pvcreate. The exact call is in [partman-lvm]/lib/lvm-base.sh grep pvcreate lib/lvm-base.sh log-output -t partman-lvm pvcreate -ff -y $pv root@hulk:~# pvcreate -ff -y /dev/sdb1 Writing physical volume data to disk /dev/sdb1 Physical volume /dev/sdb1 successfully created root@hulk:~# pvck /dev/sdb1 Found label on /dev/sdb1, sector 1, type=LVM2 001 Found text metadata area: offset=4096, size=1047552 True or not, it happens, and is highly reproducible. I'm getting this inside d-i, built against udebs from unstable: ~ # pvck /dev/sda5 Found label on /dev/sda5, sector 1, type=LVM2 001 Found text metadata area: offset=4096, size=1044480 (i.e.: I'm not able to reproduce here; but I've got no 3TB things) Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#740068: debian-installer: segfaults when built against testing
Package: debian-installer Severity: important I'm not sure what's happening here, but building today a d-i image against testing results in several segfaults (notably when trying to install libc6-udeb, segfault in busybox sh), along with the impossibility to start a console by pressing Enter (segfault in busybox sh as well). It doesn't seem to happen when building against unstable, but it would be nice to make sure we spot the reason/bugfix and possibly speed up its propagation to testing. Mraw, KiBi. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140225110215.10797.97459.reportbug@arya
Bug#740068: debian-installer: segfaults when built against testing
Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org (2014-02-25): I'm not sure what's happening here, but building today a d-i image against testing results in several segfaults (notably when trying to install libc6-udeb, segfault in busybox sh), along with the impossibility to start a console by pressing Enter (segfault in busybox sh as well). It doesn't seem to happen when building against unstable, but it would be nice to make sure we spot the reason/bugfix and possibly speed up its propagation to testing. I forgot to mention it's netboot/gtk/mini.iso on amd64, in case it matters. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
[base-installer] [PATCH] Allow preseeding the debootstrap variant to use
---
debian/bootstrap-base.postinst | 5 +
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
diff --git a/debian/bootstrap-base.postinst b/debian/bootstrap-base.postinst
index 5beaf01..13950e7 100755
--- a/debian/bootstrap-base.postinst
+++ b/debian/bootstrap-base.postinst
@@ -27,6 +27,10 @@ if [ ! -e
/usr/share/debootstrap/scripts/$DEBOOTSTRAP_SCRIPT ]; then
error debootstrap script '$DEBOOTSTRAP_SCRIPT' doesn't exist
fi
+# Check if a specific variant should be used
+db_get base-installer/debootstrap_variant
+DEBOOTSTRAP_VARIANT=--variant=$RET
+
# Avoid debconf sending email during the base install process
DEBCONF_ADMIN_EMAIL=
export DEBCONF_ADMIN_EMAIL
@@ -128,6 +132,7 @@ install_base_system () {
--resolve-deps \
${include} ${exclude} \
${sigcheck} \
+ ${DEBOOTSTRAP_VARIANT} \
${DISTRIBUTION} /target \
$PROTOCOL://$MIRROR$DIRECTORY \
${DEBOOTSTRAP_SCRIPT} \
--
1.8.5.3
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/1393327302-8671-1-git-send-email-p...@debian.org
Re: [base-installer] [PATCH] Create DPKG_CONFDIR before putting files in it
On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 11:52 +0300, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Hmm, I guess this doesn't hurt; but from what I can see, bootstrap-base.postinst calls that function after having installed the base system, and dpkg ships this directory. I only noticed that after I sent the patch, sorry. While trying to figure out how to add a hook before debootstrap was being run, I saw the function creates the apt config dir but not the dpkg one and thought that was a bit weird. I also tend to think that relying on side effects from other parts of the code is not an optimal way to do things. Is that because of live-installer.postinst, which calls install_live_system instead? Unrelated. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#739682: installation-report: Installation hangs with 'pkgsel: finishing up'
The reported bug happens with all testing amd64 netinst images previous to Feb 21. They were ISOs that worked perfectly, and simply stopped working on Wednesday, February 19. All testing netinst amd64 ISOs launched from February 22, stop at 11% of the installation, between read the CD and the selection of mirrors. -- Blau Araujo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/530c80a1.9050...@gmail.com
Bug#740068: debian-installer: segfaults when built against testing
Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org (2014-02-25): Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org (2014-02-25): It doesn't seem to happen when building against unstable, but it would be nice to make sure we spot the reason/bugfix and possibly speed up its propagation to testing. I forgot to mention it's netboot/gtk/mini.iso on amd64, in case it matters. So here are the results of some cross tests, using this: git clean -xdf make rebuild_netboot-gtk USE_UDEBS_FROM=... chroot \ USE_UDEBS_FROM | jessie | sid - jessie |OK| segfault - sid | segfault |OK (FTR my chroots are up-to-date and sid's has 2.18-3.) This might be due to some libc mismatch (2.17 vs. 2.18) I guess? This rings some bells: | eglibc (2.18-2) unstable; urgency=medium | | [ Aurelien Jarno ] | * any/local-ldconfig-ignore-ld.so.diff: new patch to ignore the dynamic | linker in ldconfig. Closes: #699206, #707185, #727786, #736097, | #739734, #739758. eglibc maintainers, can you please suggest further directions for me to look into? Initial d-i bug report with busybox sh segfaults: http://bugs.debian.org/740068 Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [base-installer] [PATCH] Allow preseeding the debootstrap variant to use
Paul Wise p...@debian.org (2014-02-25):
---
debian/bootstrap-base.postinst | 5 +
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
diff --git a/debian/bootstrap-base.postinst b/debian/bootstrap-base.postinst
index 5beaf01..13950e7 100755
--- a/debian/bootstrap-base.postinst
+++ b/debian/bootstrap-base.postinst
@@ -27,6 +27,10 @@ if [ ! -e
/usr/share/debootstrap/scripts/$DEBOOTSTRAP_SCRIPT ]; then
error debootstrap script '$DEBOOTSTRAP_SCRIPT' doesn't exist
fi
+# Check if a specific variant should be used
+db_get base-installer/debootstrap_variant
+DEBOOTSTRAP_VARIANT=--variant=$RET
+
# Avoid debconf sending email during the base install process
DEBCONF_ADMIN_EMAIL=
export DEBCONF_ADMIN_EMAIL
@@ -128,6 +132,7 @@ install_base_system () {
--resolve-deps \
${include} ${exclude} \
${sigcheck} \
+ ${DEBOOTSTRAP_VARIANT} \
${DISTRIBUTION} /target \
$PROTOCOL://$MIRROR$DIRECTORY \
${DEBOOTSTRAP_SCRIPT} \
I don't think this would work in the non-preseeded case?
| kibi@arya:/tmp$ sudo debootstrap --variant= sid sid
http://ftp.fr.debian.org/debian
| [sudo] password for kibi:
| E: unrecognized or invalid option --variant=
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
[base-installer] [PATCH] Allow preseeding the debootstrap variant to use
---
debian/bootstrap-base.postinst | 6 ++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/debian/bootstrap-base.postinst b/debian/bootstrap-base.postinst
index 5beaf01..ed2e0ab 100755
--- a/debian/bootstrap-base.postinst
+++ b/debian/bootstrap-base.postinst
@@ -27,6 +27,11 @@ if [ ! -e
/usr/share/debootstrap/scripts/$DEBOOTSTRAP_SCRIPT ]; then
error debootstrap script '$DEBOOTSTRAP_SCRIPT' doesn't exist
fi
+# Check if a specific variant should be used
+if db_get base-installer/debootstrap_variant [ $RET ]; then
+ DEBOOTSTRAP_VARIANT=--variant=$RET
+fi
+
# Avoid debconf sending email during the base install process
DEBCONF_ADMIN_EMAIL=
export DEBCONF_ADMIN_EMAIL
@@ -128,6 +133,7 @@ install_base_system () {
--resolve-deps \
${include} ${exclude} \
${sigcheck} \
+ ${DEBOOTSTRAP_VARIANT} \
${DISTRIBUTION} /target \
$PROTOCOL://$MIRROR$DIRECTORY \
${DEBOOTSTRAP_SCRIPT} \
--
1.8.5.3
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/1393329697-12337-1-git-send-email-p...@debian.org
Re: [base-installer] [PATCH] Allow preseeding the debootstrap variant to use
Paul Wise p...@debian.org (2014-02-25):
---
debian/bootstrap-base.postinst | 6 ++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/debian/bootstrap-base.postinst b/debian/bootstrap-base.postinst
index 5beaf01..ed2e0ab 100755
--- a/debian/bootstrap-base.postinst
+++ b/debian/bootstrap-base.postinst
@@ -27,6 +27,11 @@ if [ ! -e
/usr/share/debootstrap/scripts/$DEBOOTSTRAP_SCRIPT ]; then
error debootstrap script '$DEBOOTSTRAP_SCRIPT' doesn't exist
fi
+# Check if a specific variant should be used
+if db_get base-installer/debootstrap_variant [ $RET ]; then
+ DEBOOTSTRAP_VARIANT=--variant=$RET
+fi
+
# Avoid debconf sending email during the base install process
DEBCONF_ADMIN_EMAIL=
export DEBCONF_ADMIN_EMAIL
@@ -128,6 +133,7 @@ install_base_system () {
--resolve-deps \
${include} ${exclude} \
${sigcheck} \
+ ${DEBOOTSTRAP_VARIANT} \
${DISTRIBUTION} /target \
$PROTOCOL://$MIRROR$DIRECTORY \
${DEBOOTSTRAP_SCRIPT} \
That should probably work better, thanks. Feel free to push, along with
a changelog update. (I've just added you as a d-i developer on alioth.)
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Bug#562427: marked as done (please rephrase the installer question about MODULES setting for initramfs-tools)
Your message dated Tue, 25 Feb 2014 15:43:31 +0300 with message-id 20140225124331.ga25...@mraw.org and subject line Re: Bug#562427: cryptsetup: Cannot enter luks pass phrase with USB keyboard during boot has caused the Debian Bug report #562427, regarding please rephrase the installer question about MODULES setting for initramfs-tools 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.) -- 562427: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=562427 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: cryptsetup Version: 2:1.1.0~rc2-1 Severity: important USB keyboard works with BIOS before boot. USB keyboard works with Grub Menu and edit before loading. At luks prompt USB keyboard has no effect, acts as if not connected. Unplugging and plugging in the USB keyboard while at the luks prompt has no visible effect. PS2 keyboard works as expected at luks prompt. USB keyboard works after system is loaded. -- Package-specific info: -- /proc/cmdline BOOT_IMAGE=//vmlinuz-2.6.32-trunk-amd64 root=/dev/mapper/athene-root ro quiet vga=798 -- /etc/crypttab sda2_crypt /dev/sda2 none luks -- /etc/fstab # /etc/fstab: static file system information. # # file system mount point type options dump pass proc/proc procdefaults0 0 /dev/mapper/athene-root / ext3 noatime,errors=remount-ro 0 1 /dev/sda1 /boot ext2defaults0 2 /dev/mapper/athene-home /home ext3noatime,nodev,nosuid 0 2 /dev/mapper/athene-tmp /tmpext3defaults0 2 /dev/mapper/athene-usr /usrext3noatime,nodev 0 2 /dev/mapper/athene-usr--local /usr/local ext3noatime,nodev 0 2 /dev/mapper/athene-var /varext3noatime,nodev 0 2 /dev/mapper/athene-var--backups /var/backups ext3noatime,nodev 0 2 /dev/mapper/athene-var--log /var/logext3 noatime,nodev,nosuid,noexec 0 2 /dev/mapper/athene-var--spool /var/spool ext3noatime,nodev 0 2 /dev/mapper/athene-opt /optext3noatime,nodev 0 2 /dev/mapper/athene-swap noneswapsw 0 0 /dev/hdc/media/cdrom0 udf,iso9660 user,noauto 0 0 /dev/fd0/media/floppy0 autorw,user,noauto 0 0 -- lsmod Module Size Used by cdc_acm13779 0 nvidia 9495381 28 agpgart24733 1 nvidia ppdev 5030 0 lp 7462 0 parport27938 2 ppdev,lp sco 7193 2 bridge 39438 0 stp 1440 1 bridge bnep9331 2 rfcomm 29437 0 l2cap 24656 6 bnep,rfcomm crc16 1319 1 l2cap bluetooth 41731 6 sco,bnep,rfcomm,l2cap rfkill 12932 2 bluetooth powernow_k810866 0 cpufreq_userspace 1960 0 cpufreq_powersave902 0 cpufreq_conservative 5162 0 cpufreq_stats 2659 0 binfmt_misc 6399 1 fuse 49886 1 ext2 52841 1 loop 11735 0 usbhid 31068 0 hid62681 1 usbhid ide_cd_mod 24712 0 usb_storage38393 1 cdrom 29399 1 ide_cd_mod ata_generic 2983 0 snd_hda_codec_analog64530 1 ide_pci_generic 2788 0 snd_hda_intel 17851 1 snd_hda_codec 52900 2 snd_hda_codec_analog,snd_hda_intel ohci_hcd 19100 0 ehci_hcd 30354 0 snd_hwdep 5364 1 snd_hda_codec sata_nv19150 0 snd_pcm_oss32399 0 snd_mixer_oss 12606 1 snd_pcm_oss amd74xx 4476 0 i2c_nforce2 5264 0 usbcore 121319 6 cdc_acm,usbhid,usb_storage,ohci_hcd,ehci_hcd snd_pcm60615 3 snd_hda_intel,snd_hda_codec,snd_pcm_oss libata131431 2 ata_generic,sata_nv firewire_ohci 19356 0 amd64_edac_mod 14043 0 ide_core 76514 3 ide_cd_mod,ide_pci_generic,amd74xx serio_raw 3752 0 snd_timer 15502 1 snd_pcm tulip 41384 0 i2c_core 15552 2 nvidia,i2c_nforce2 sg 18696 0 firewire_core 36432 1 firewire_ohci floppy 47679 0 edac_core 29245 1 amd64_edac_mod k8temp 3139 0
Bug#650437: missing dependency on nullfs-modules
Robert Millan r...@debian.org (2011-11-30):
2011/11/29 Joey Hess jo...@debian.org:
However, AFAICS, udpkg does not understand kfreebsd-any limited
dependencies, and I doubt anna does either. Did you test the patch?
Architecture-specific dependencies are processed by normal dpkg-dev at
build time, the resulting package either has the dependency or doesn't
have it, but it doesn't have anything special in it (I just verified
this works fine for base-installer udeb).
Well, another issue is that depending on nullfs-modules won't fly since
there can be several packages in the archive at the same time that
provide it, due to the different major FreeBSD kernel versions. So
nullfs-modules-${kernel:Version} in src:debian-installer looks better
to me. What do you think?
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Bug#650437: missing dependency on nullfs-modules
On 25/02/2014 12:54, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Robert Millan r...@debian.org (2011-11-30):
2011/11/29 Joey Hess jo...@debian.org:
However, AFAICS, udpkg does not understand kfreebsd-any limited
dependencies, and I doubt anna does either. Did you test the patch?
Architecture-specific dependencies are processed by normal dpkg-dev at
build time, the resulting package either has the dependency or doesn't
have it, but it doesn't have anything special in it (I just verified
this works fine for base-installer udeb).
Well, another issue is that depending on nullfs-modules won't fly since
there can be several packages in the archive at the same time that
provide it, due to the different major FreeBSD kernel versions. So
nullfs-modules-${kernel:Version} in src:debian-installer looks better
to me. What do you think?
I guess it'd be fine but I'm not familiar with that. Have you tested it?
--
Robert Millan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/530c9614.3080...@debian.org
Bug#533579: base-passwd install fails with fatal syntax error: unknown user `mpd'
Colin Watson cjwat...@debian.org (2009-06-19): The installer should have warned you about the fact that installing over an unclean (unformatted) target is likely to break, and this is one of the ways in which it will break. Maybe it needs to warn harder, or attempt to clear out dpkg's configuration or something. FTR, base-installer.templates has: | _Description: Proceed with installation to unclean target? | The target file system contains files from a past installation. These files | could cause problems with the installation process, and if you proceed, | some of the existing files may be overwritten. Ubuntu has a scheme involving clearing a reasonable selection of system directories if you try to install over an unformatted filesystem, in order to make it easier for people to reinstall while keeping /home and /srv and so on. It's had some teething troubles, but it's reasonably mature now and might be worth considering. What do we do? Try to get Ubuntu's stuff into Debian, or possibly make the wording quoted above stronger? (If it were just me, I'd go with either the latter, or maybe just closing this bug report as user error.) Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#626217: Default /etc/kernel-img.conf should have do_symlinks=no; nothing needs those links now
Hi Ben, Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk (2011-05-16): On Mon, 2011-05-09 at 17:17 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: Package: base-installer Severity: normal Now that the various bootloaders have hooks to handle kernel installation, or otherwise automatically handle all kernels via their actual paths, do_symlinks doesn't seem necessary anymore. Please consider defaulting it to no. Josh, this is simply not true. Only grub and syslinux create menus of all installed kernels. I hope to get this changed for wheezy, but can't promise it. can you please send us an update to see how we stand WRT this bug report? Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#602506: marked as done (HP DL165 boot crash with lenny i386 686 but OK with -bigmem or amd64)
Your message dated Tue, 25 Feb 2014 16:16:58 +0300 with message-id 20140225131658.ga29...@mraw.org and subject line Re: Bug#602506: HP DL165 boot crash with lenny i386 686 but OK with -bigmem or amd64 has caused the Debian Bug report #602506, regarding HP DL165 boot crash with lenny i386 686 but OK with -bigmem or amd64 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.) -- 602506: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=602506 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: base-installer On an HP DL165 (AMD-based) system, lenny i386 does not install, although lenny amd64 works fine. The installer kernel boots properly and runs normally; the installation runs to completion (although I have to interactively ignore a couple of warnings about the cciss RAID controller[1], though the lenny amd64 installer kernel has no difficulty). However, when the installer reboots to try to boot the installed system, the installed system's kernel crashes on boot while enumerating the processors. See attached serial console log. It was suggested to me by Colin Watson that the cause might be that the installer is picking the wrong kernel flavour. From the serial log I see it chose 2.6.26-2-686. When I run the install again and select linux-image-2.6.26-2-486, the install completes successfully. Having done so and installed linux-image-2.6-686_2.6.26+17+lenny1_i386 and linux-image-2.6-686-bigmem_2.6.26+17+lenny1_i386. The 686-bigmem kernel boots fine. The vanilla 686 one crashes. This bug is against base-installer because Colin Watson suggested to me that the problem is that it's picking the wrong kernel flavour. However, perhaps I should also file a bug against the 686 kernel ? Ian. [1] Unable to determine geometry of file/device /dev/cciss/c0d0. You should not use Parted unless you REALLY know what you're doing! Warning! 1. Ignore [*] 2. Cancel Prompt: '?' for help, default=1 1 processor : 0 vendor_id : AuthenticAMD cpu family : 16 model : 8 model name : Six-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2427 stepping: 0 cpu MHz : 2194.501 cache size : 512 KB physical id : 0 siblings: 6 core id : 0 cpu cores : 6 apicid : 8 initial apicid : 0 fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 5 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 ht syscall nx mmxext fxsr_opt pdpe1gb rdtscp lm 3dnowext 3dnow constant_tsc rep_good pni monitor cx16 popcnt lahf_lm cmp_legacy svm extapic cr8_legacy abm sse4a misalignsse 3dnowprefetch osvw ibs skinit wdt bogomips: 4392.39 TLB size: 1024 4K pages clflush size: 64 cache_alignment : 64 address sizes : 48 bits physical, 48 bits virtual power management: ts ttp tm stc 100mhzsteps hwpstate processor : 1 vendor_id : AuthenticAMD cpu family : 16 model : 8 model name : Six-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2427 stepping: 0 cpu MHz : 2194.501 cache size : 512 KB physical id : 0 siblings: 6 core id : 1 cpu cores : 6 apicid : 9 initial apicid : 1 fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 5 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 ht syscall nx mmxext fxsr_opt pdpe1gb rdtscp lm 3dnowext 3dnow constant_tsc rep_good pni monitor cx16 popcnt lahf_lm cmp_legacy svm extapic cr8_legacy abm sse4a misalignsse 3dnowprefetch osvw ibs skinit wdt bogomips: 4389.20 TLB size: 1024 4K pages clflush size: 64 cache_alignment : 64 address sizes : 48 bits physical, 48 bits virtual power management: ts ttp tm stc 100mhzsteps hwpstate processor : 2 vendor_id : AuthenticAMD cpu family : 16 model : 8 model name : Six-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2427 stepping: 0 cpu MHz : 2194.501 cache size : 512 KB physical id : 0 siblings: 6 core id : 2 cpu cores : 6 apicid : 10 initial apicid : 2 fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 5 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 ht syscall nx mmxext fxsr_opt pdpe1gb rdtscp lm 3dnowext 3dnow constant_tsc rep_good pni monitor cx16 popcnt lahf_lm cmp_legacy svm extapic cr8_legacy abm sse4a
Bug#666766: marked as done (debian-installer: 00CDMountPoint apt configuration file has an incorrect syntax)
Your message dated Tue, 25 Feb 2014 16:31:04 +0300
with message-id 20140225133104.ga31...@mraw.org
and subject line Re: Bug#666766: debian-installer: 00CDMountPoint apt
configuration file has an incorrect syntax
has caused the Debian Bug report #666766,
regarding debian-installer: 00CDMountPoint apt configuration file has an
incorrect syntax
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.)
--
666766: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=666766
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
---BeginMessage---
Package: debian-installer
Severity: normal
Hello maintainers of the debian-installer,
First of all, thank you for your hard work.
The apt configuration file /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/00CDMountPoint looks like
generated by d-i [1].
Its syntax is not entirely correct, which causes annoying warnings for those
people who use cupt package manager.
Now it's:
| Acquire::cdrom {
| mount /media/cdrom;
| }
| Dir::Media::MountPath /media/cdrom;
apt.conf(5) require semicolons after closing parentheses as well, so the right
syntax would be:
| Acquire::cdrom {
| mount /media/cdrom;
| };
| Dir::Media::MountPath /media/cdrom;
(note the semicolon in the third line).
I wanted to provide a patch but couldn't find the file in the sources of d-i
[2]. Please let me know anything else I can do to have this fixed in the
wheezy's
debian-installer.
[1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=611569#30
[2] git://git.debian.org/d-i/debian-installer.git
-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'stable-updates'), (500, 'unstable'),
(500, 'stable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-1-686-pae (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=fi_FI.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fi_FI.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
---End Message---
---BeginMessage---
Version: 1.124
Eugene V. Lyubimkin jac...@debian.org (2012-04-01):
Its syntax is not entirely correct, which causes annoying warnings for
those people who use cupt package manager.
Now it's:
| Acquire::cdrom {
| mount /media/cdrom;
| }
| Dir::Media::MountPath /media/cdrom;
apt.conf(5) require semicolons after closing parentheses as well, so
the right syntax would be: […]
This manpage doesn't say that AFAICT. It even points to:
/usr/share/doc/apt/examples/apt.conf
which ends with:
DPkg
{
// Probably don't want to use force-downgrade..
Options {--force-overwrite;}
}
so I'm not sure cupt is right in complaining about that.
I wanted to provide a patch but couldn't find the file in the sources
of d-i [2]. Please let me know anything else I can do to have this
fixed in the wheezy's debian-installer.
[1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=611569#30
[2] git://git.debian.org/d-i/debian-installer.git
Anyway, base-installer has:
| commit 722410e864eccf3cc83bb8bb655079a99eb347d3
| Author: Joey Hess j...@kitenet.net
| Date: Sat Apr 7 16:02:27 2012 -0400
|
| Add missing semicolon to /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/00CDMountPoint.
so closing with the appropriate version.
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
---End Message---
Bug#650437: missing dependency on nullfs-modules
Robert Millan r...@debian.org (2014-02-25):
On 25/02/2014 12:54, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Well, another issue is that depending on nullfs-modules won't fly since
there can be several packages in the archive at the same time that
provide it, due to the different major FreeBSD kernel versions. So
nullfs-modules-${kernel:Version} in src:debian-installer looks better
to me. What do you think?
I guess it'd be fine but I'm not familiar with that. Have you tested it?
Heh? That's what you committed a while ago, and what we've been using
ever since. :)
http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=d-i/debian-installer.git;a=commitdiff;h=08e4b9da894247014bbbddb4c493a503f8992867
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Bug#602506: HP DL165 boot crash with lenny i386 686 but OK with -bigmem or amd64
Cyril Brulebois writes (Re: Bug#602506: HP DL165 boot crash with lenny i386 686 but OK with -bigmem or amd64): Either way, kernel selection was adjusted over the last release cycles, especially after kernel flavours were reduced to a bare minimum. I doubt this bug is still current, so closing for now. Fair enough. I don't have a reasonable way to try to repro this right now. If I do get a chance to try this with wheezy I will reopen this bug if it is still present. Thanks for your consideration. Regards, Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21260.40119.532700.885...@mariner.uk.xensource.com
Bug#243437: marked as done (sometimes doesn't update progress bar after pick_kernel for install_kernel)
Your message dated Tue, 25 Feb 2014 16:47:53 +0300 with message-id 20140225134753.ga1...@mraw.org and subject line Re: Bug#243437: sometimes doesn't update progress bar after pick_kernel for install_kernel has caused the Debian Bug report #243437, regarding sometimes doesn't update progress bar after pick_kernel for install_kernel 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.) -- 243437: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=243437 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: base-installer Severity: minor Tags: d-i Sometimes (I've seen this three of four times, and users have also reported it), base-installer's progress bar will still display the pick_kernel text while it has gone on to installing a kernel, or even installing extra packages. Of course I can see nothing in the code that would prevent it from updating the progress bar before going on to these steps. I have no DEBCONF_DEBUG trace of this happening. :-/ -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.4.25 Locale: LANG=en_US, LC_CTYPE=en_US -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- Jérémy Bobbio lu...@debian.org (2007-08-15): tags 243437 + moreinfo thanks On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 10:46:15PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: Sometimes (I've seen this three of four times, and users have also reported it), base-installer's progress bar will still display the pick_kernel text while it has gone on to installing a kernel, or even installing extra packages. Of course I can see nothing in the code that would prevent it from updating the progress bar before going on to these steps. This report is fairly old, already. Did you ever noticed such behaviour in more recent version of d-i? Tagged moreinfo a few years ago, closing now. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ---End Message---
Bug#244435: hooks
Colin Watson cjwat...@debian.org (2004-07-08): On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 02:23:03PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote: As discussed, we need hooks to easily install packages only on one (sub-)arch. Well, you *can* just do it with apt-install, although it's a bit heavyweight ... it does indicate that the hooks don't necessarily have to be in base-installer though, since it already has that one big generic hook for installing packages. Perhaps somewhere in ddetect would be better? I must admit I only quick-read this, sorry if the following question is dumb: Is today's discover sufficient? Or do we still need to implement something? Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#249757: should install nwutil on arm/netwinder
Martin Michlmayr t...@cyrius.com (2004-05-19): Package: base-installer Version: 0.081 Severity: wishlist base-installer should install nwutil on arm/netwinder. I think it is no longer needed since: | commit 7ae62e3d23d7b191ae48da5b3569e2996e13f754 | Author: Martin Michlmayr t...@debian.org | Date: Mon Feb 16 13:23:18 2009 + | | Remove support for the old arm port. | | r57584 or armel has netwinder support through a more generic image (I still know close to nothing about arm*, sorry). Can you please either close this bug report or enlighten me about netwinder vs. arm*? Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#255104: marked as done (kernel: install symlinks into /boot, not /, please!)
Your message dated Tue, 25 Feb 2014 17:04:08 +0300 with message-id 20140225140408.ga4...@mraw.org and subject line Re: Bug#255104: why is this bug assigned to rootskel? has caused the Debian Bug report #255104, regarding kernel: install symlinks into /boot, not /, please! 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.) -- 255104: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=255104 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: kernel Severity: serious Justification: FHS I will clone this bug for make-kpkg to fix up the default in /etc/kernel-img.conf. The symlinks to kernel and initrd should live in /boot, not in /. The FHS does not allow them to live in /, and I don't see a single reason why they need to be there. We may have to keep two versions around for a while until the bootloaders have grokked it. However, setting $link_in_boot appropriately should allow them to deal. -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers testing APT policy: (600, 'testing'), (98, 'unstable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.6-1-k7-smp Locale: LANG=en_GB.ISO-8859-15, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.ISO-8859-15 -- Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them! .''`. martin f. krafft madd...@debian.org : :' :proud Debian developer, admin, and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! signature.asc Description: Digital signature ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- martin f krafft madd...@debian.org (2004-12-17): There is no problem, merely a cosmetical issue. Also, it has been discussed on d-b and I remember the result to be: there are more important things to be done right now. I would still love to see kernel images installed to /boot by default. However, I realise that this won't be easy... Almost 10 years later, that's still true, so I'll close this bug report for now. Really not keen on spending time on this, especially given the high risks of breaking virtually everything. :) Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ---End Message---
Bug#650437: missing dependency on nullfs-modules
On 25/02/2014 13:33, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Robert Millan r...@debian.org (2014-02-25):
On 25/02/2014 12:54, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Well, another issue is that depending on nullfs-modules won't fly since
there can be several packages in the archive at the same time that
provide it, due to the different major FreeBSD kernel versions. So
nullfs-modules-${kernel:Version} in src:debian-installer looks better
to me. What do you think?
I guess it'd be fine but I'm not familiar with that. Have you tested it?
Heh? That's what you committed a while ago, and what we've been using
ever since. :)
http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=d-i/debian-installer.git;a=commitdiff;h=08e4b9da894247014bbbddb4c493a503f8992867
Must be fine then. What's the purpose of this conversation?
--
Robert Millan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/530ca32c.6000...@debian.org
Bug#650437: missing dependency on nullfs-modules
Robert Millan r...@debian.org (2014-02-25): Must be fine then. What's the purpose of this conversation? I was trying to make sure implementing a Depends: nullfs-modules in base-installer (#650437) couldn't work, so as to: 1. close it; 2. call the current implementation (through pkglist) no longer a kludge but a permanent solution. Sorry for bothering you while triaging bug reports… KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#365682: marked as done (Should offer the option to load a custom kernel from removable devices)
Your message dated Tue, 25 Feb 2014 17:11:26 +0300 with message-id 20140225141126.ga4...@mraw.org and subject line Re: Bug#365682: INSTALL REPORT has caused the Debian Bug report #365682, regarding Should offer the option to load a custom kernel from removable devices 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.) -- 365682: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=365682 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: installation-reports INSTALL REPORT Debian-installer-version: 2006-03-12 Unstable uname -a: Linux mandella 2.6.15.6 #1 Tue Mar 7 11:47:38 EST 2006 x86_64 GNU/Linux Date: 2006-03.13 Method: Network Install, Bootable CDROM, Installed from planetmirror.com mirror in Australia Machine: Whitebox Athlon64 Processor: AMD Athlon64 3000+ (Socket 939) Memory: 1024Mb Root Device: SATA (Using :00:0f.0 IDE interface: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT8251 AHCI/SATA 4-Port Controller ) Distributed Kernel had no drivers, so installed on vanilla IDE, and then moved install over to sata disk after building custom patched kernel. Root Size/partition table: /dev/sda1 * 63 192779 96358+ 83 Linux /boot /dev/sda2 486319680 490223474 1951897+ 82 Linux swap / Solaris /dev/sda3 192780 486319679 243063450 83 Linux / Output of lspci and lspci -n: :00:00.0 Host bridge: VIA Technologies, Inc. K8M800 Host Bridge :00:00.1 Host bridge: VIA Technologies, Inc. K8M800 Host Bridge :00:00.2 Host bridge: VIA Technologies, Inc. K8M800 Host Bridge :00:00.3 Host bridge: VIA Technologies, Inc. K8M800 Host Bridge :00:00.4 Host bridge: VIA Technologies, Inc. K8M800 Host Bridge :00:00.7 Host bridge: VIA Technologies, Inc. K8M800 Host Bridge :00:01.0 PCI bridge: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT8237 PCI bridge [K8T800/K8T890 South] :00:0f.0 IDE interface: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT8251 AHCI/SATA 4-Port Controller :00:0f.1 IDE interface: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT82C586A/B/VT82C686/A/B/VT823x/A/C PIPC Bus Master IDE (rev 07) :00:10.0 USB Controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT82x UHCI USB 1.1 Controller (rev 90) :00:10.1 USB Controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT82x UHCI USB 1.1 Controller (rev 90) :00:10.2 USB Controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT82x UHCI USB 1.1 Controller (rev 90) :00:10.3 USB Controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT82x UHCI USB 1.1 Controller (rev 90) :00:10.4 USB Controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. USB 2.0 (rev 90) :00:11.0 ISA bridge: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT8251 PCI to ISA Bridge :00:11.5 Multimedia audio controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT8233/A/8235/8237 AC97 Audio Controller (rev 70) :00:11.7 Host bridge: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT8251 Ultra VLINK Controller :00:12.0 Ethernet controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT6102 [Rhine-II] (rev 7c) :00:13.0 PCI bridge: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT8251 PCI to PCIE Bridge :00:18.0 Host bridge: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD] K8 [Athlon64/Opteron] HyperTransport Technology Configuration :00:18.1 Host bridge: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD] K8 [Athlon64/Opteron] Address Map :00:18.2 Host bridge: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD] K8 [Athlon64/Opteron] DRAM Controller :00:18.3 Host bridge: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD] K8 [Athlon64/Opteron] Miscellaneous Control :01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: nVidia Corporation NV34 [GeForce FX 5200] (rev a1) :02:00.0 PCI bridge: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT8251 PCIE Root Port :02:00.1 PCI bridge: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT8251 PCIE Root Port :00:00.0 0600: 1106:0204 :00:00.1 0600: 1106:1204 :00:00.2 0600: 1106:2204 :00:00.3 0600: 1106:3204 :00:00.4 0600: 1106:4204 :00:00.7 0600: 1106:7204 :00:01.0 0604: 1106:b188 :00:0f.0 0101: 1106:3349 :00:0f.1 0101: 1106:0571 (rev 07) :00:10.0 0c03: 1106:3038 (rev 90) :00:10.1 0c03: 1106:3038 (rev 90) :00:10.2 0c03: 1106:3038 (rev 90) :00:10.3 0c03: 1106:3038 (rev 90) :00:10.4 0c03: 1106:3104 (rev 90) :00:11.0 0601: 1106:3287 :00:11.5 0401: 1106:3059 (rev 70) :00:11.7 0600: 1106:287e :00:12.0 0200: 1106:3065 (rev 7c) :00:13.0 0604: 1106:287b :00:18.0 0600: 1022:1100 :00:18.1 0600: 1022:1101 :00:18.2 0600: 1022:1102 :00:18.3 0600: 1022:1103 :01:00.0 0300: 10de:0322 (rev a1) :02:00.0 0604: 1106:287c :02:00.1 0604: 1106:287 Base System Installation Checklist: [O] = OK, [E] = Error (please elaborate below), [ ] = didn't try it Initial boot worked:[O] Configure network HW: [O] Config
Bug#740080: netcfg: dhcp/rdns domain name overrides netcfg/get_domain
Package: netcfg Severity: normal Tags: d-i Dear Maintainer, Much like netcfg/get_hostname, a manually preseeded netcfg/get_domain is overridden by DHCP. This is similar to #544513. For the hostname a second debconf key is available to force the hostname to that value, but for domain this value does not appear to exist. That makes it impossible to preseed a domainname when installing in a network that provides one, when it is different from what it should be. For example when installing a server destined for a datacenter or customer while in one's office. This then causes problems with for example preseeding a puppet installation. Either preseeded netcfg/get_domain values should take precedence over anything gathered from the network, or a separate key should be provided that does. -- System Information: Debian Release: 7.4 APT prefers stable-updates APT policy: (500, 'stable-updates'), (500, 'stable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-4-amd64 (SMP w/12 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: https://lists.debian.org/20140225141424.5959.37697.report...@hosting8.driebit.net
Bug#602506: HP DL165 boot crash with lenny i386 686 but OK with -bigmem or amd64
On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 13:37 +, Ian Jackson wrote: Cyril Brulebois writes (Re: Bug#602506: HP DL165 boot crash with lenny i386 686 but OK with -bigmem or amd64): Either way, kernel selection was adjusted over the last release cycles, especially after kernel flavours were reduced to a bare minimum. I doubt this bug is still current, so closing for now. Fair enough. I don't have a reasonable way to try to repro this right now. If I do get a chance to try this with wheezy I will reopen this bug if it is still present. Thanks for your consideration. This is a 12-core system. In lenny, the 686 flavour supported only 8 CPUs whereas the 686-bigmem flavour supported 32, and I suspect that this led to the boot failure (though I would have expected the extra CPUs to simply be unused - and obviously that did work for the 486 (single CPU) kernel in the installer). Also, I expect that this system has at least 4GB of RAM, some of which would have been inaccessible with the 686 flavour even if it could boot. I believe this was fixed in squeeze as: - Starting with linux 2.6.30-1, both 686 and 686-bigmem flavours supported up to 32 CPUs - I changed d-i's kernel flavour selection to use 686-bigmem if PAE is supported and there is RAM with a physical address above 4GB, so the 686 flavour would not be selected for this system In wheezy the 686-pae flavour (renamed 686-bigmem) is installed on all systems supporting PAE. Not that I would recommend installing i386 on a 64-bit capable system, anyway. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. - Albert Einstein signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#379205: marked as done (base-installer: more explicit support for xen and vserver kernels)
Your message dated Tue, 25 Feb 2014 17:14:52 +0300 with message-id 20140225141452.ga5...@mraw.org and subject line Re: Bug#379205: base-installer: more explicit support for xen and vserver kernels has caused the Debian Bug report #379205, regarding base-installer: more explicit support for xen and vserver kernels 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.) -- 379205: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=379205 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: base-installer Version: 1.63 With 2.6.16 we now also have xen and vserver kernel flavors. Currently these are just listed as available kernels. Possibly checks can be added so they are only shown in a xen resp. vserver environment. pgpVf25XEDvN6.pgp Description: PGP signature ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl (2006-07-22): With 2.6.16 we now also have xen and vserver kernel flavors. Currently these are just listed as available kernels. Possibly checks can be added so they are only shown in a xen resp. vserver environment. Those flavours are gone, so closing. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ---End Message---
Bug#249757: marked as done (should install nwutil on arm/netwinder)
Your message dated Tue, 25 Feb 2014 09:12:12 -0500 with message-id 20140225141212.gt12...@jirafa.cyrius.com and subject line Re: Bug#249757: should install nwutil on arm/netwinder has caused the Debian Bug report #249757, regarding should install nwutil on arm/netwinder 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.) -- 249757: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=249757 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: base-installer Version: 0.081 Severity: wishlist base-installer should install nwutil on arm/netwinder. -- Martin Michlmayr t...@cyrius.com ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- * Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org [2014-02-25 17:01]: or armel has netwinder support through a more generic image (I still know close to nothing about arm*, sorry). Can you please either close this bug report or enlighten me about netwinder vs. arm*? Yes, Netwinder support was removed. Closing. -- Martin Michlmayr http://www.cyrius.com/---End Message---
Bug#249757: should install nwutil on arm/netwinder
On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 17:01 +0300, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Martin Michlmayr t...@cyrius.com (2004-05-19): Package: base-installer Version: 0.081 Severity: wishlist base-installer should install nwutil on arm/netwinder. I think it is no longer needed since: | commit 7ae62e3d23d7b191ae48da5b3569e2996e13f754 | Author: Martin Michlmayr t...@debian.org | Date: Mon Feb 16 13:23:18 2009 + | | Remove support for the old arm port. | | r57584 or armel has netwinder support through a more generic image (I still know close to nothing about arm*, sorry). Can you please either close this bug report or enlighten me about netwinder vs. arm*? It's not supported by any kernel image in the armel port. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. - Albert Einstein signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#244435: hooks
* Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org [2014-02-25 16:54]: Well, you *can* just do it with apt-install, although it's a bit heavyweight ... it does indicate that the hooks don't necessarily have to be in base-installer though, since it already has that one big generic hook for installing packages. Perhaps somewhere in ddetect would be better? I must admit I only quick-read this, sorry if the following question is dumb: Is today's discover sufficient? Or do we still need to implement something? Well, we have things like rootskel where we include certain scripts only on certain architectures (src/lib/debian-installer-startup.d/Makefile), so I believe no further hooks are needed. Scripts can always check for the architecture using archdetect. So from my POV you're welcome to close this bug report. -- Martin Michlmayr http://www.cyrius.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140225141824.gu12...@jirafa.cyrius.com
Bug#244435: marked as done (Needs hooks to install (sub-)arch dependent packages)
Your message dated Tue, 25 Feb 2014 17:24:22 +0300 with message-id 20140225142422.ga6...@mraw.org and subject line Re: Bug#244435: hooks has caused the Debian Bug report #244435, regarding Needs hooks to install (sub-)arch dependent 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.) -- 244435: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=244435 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: installation-reports INSTALL REPORT Debian-installer-version: daily snapshot from 2004-03-28 uname -a: 2.4.25 Method: I netbooted boot.img obtained from http://people.debian.org/~vince/d-i/images/daily/netwinder/netboot/ via TFTP. I did one installation with a VGA monitor and PS/2 keyboard, and another one via the serial console Machine: Corel/Rebel Netwinder Processor: ARM Memory: 128 Root Device: IDE Output of lspci: :00:00.0 Co-processor: Digital Equipment Corporation StrongARM DC21285 (rev 03) :00:09.0 VGA compatible controller: Intergraphics Systems CyberPro 2000A (rev 01) :00:0a.0 Ethernet controller: Digital Equipment Corporation DECchip 21142/43 (rev 41) :00:0c.0 ISA bridge: Symphony Labs W83C553 (rev 10) :00:0c.1 IDE interface: Symphony Labs SL82c105 (rev 05) :00:0d.0 Ethernet controller: Winbond Electronics Corp W89C940F Base System Installation Checklist: [O] = OK, [E] = Error (please elaborate below), [ ] = didn't try it Initial boot worked:[O] Configure network HW: [O] initially some problems, most of them solved Config network: [O] Detect CD: [ ] Load installer modules: [O] Detect hard drives: [O] Partition hard drives: [O] Create file systems:[O] should warn if using ext3 for root Mount partitions: [O] Install base system:[O] Install boot loader:[ ] doesn't need a boot loader Reboot: [O] Comments/Problems: I think this is the first installation with debian-installer on a Netwinder. I used the boot.img image (a daily snapshot) and booted via TFTP. I passsed the following arguments to the kernel: root=/dev/ram0 devfs=mount The first time I tried it, it looked for hardware and then I got the error Error: No Ethernet card was found on the system. I noticed that the network driver was not compiled into the kernel, and neither were modules part of the initrd. I talked to Vince on IRC, and we checked a fix for pkg-list into SVN. Vince prepared a new image and I tried again. This time, I was presented with a list of various modules. I choose the one I needed (e2k-pci) and it worked. I suggested to Vince that discover should be part of the initrd. He gave me new images and automatic recogniztion of modules worked. There is a problem, however: Netwinder have 2 NICs: eth0 is commonly the e2k-pci 10 MBit, while eth1 is the Tulip 10/100 MBit device. Unfortunately, lspci shows them in the other order, and thus discover reverses this very common naming scheme (all the Netwinder info refers to the e2k-pci device as eth0). I don't think that it's possible to tell discover to use a different order. I think one solution would be to build the e2k-pci module into the kernel, and have the tulip driver as a module. Comments on this? The installation went pretty smoothly. cfdisk was started, I partitioned the disks. I noticed ext3 was not available and pointed this out to Vince; he added it to the initrd... I then chose to use ext3 for the root partition, but this turned out to be a bad choice because the firmware cannot boot from it. I had to re-install on an ext2 partition. Can d-i warn about such things? Are there hooks for this? Also, should ARM switch to partman? The base system was installed without any problems. Well, one minor, cosmetic problem. The machine is kinda slow, and therefore it would be nice if the progress bar would be more fine grained. Oh, and the wrong kernel was installed: kernel-image-2.4.19-riscstation. It turns out that 2.4.25-netwinder is not in testing yet, so it falls back to 19-riscstation. It's not quite clear to me why it didn't present a list of all ARM kernel in testing. However, I later installed unstable, and the right kernel was installed. For the Netwinder there is a package called nwutil to change some hardware settings. This should be installed after the base. According to Joey, base-installer has some hooks to install sub-arch specific packages. Also, while looking through the logs, I noticed this message: | GNU parted was miscompiled: the FAT boot sector should be 512 bytes. FAT | support will be disabled. I guess
Bug#465236: base-installer: make kernel-img.conf/do_symlinks configurable and preseedable
Andreas Beckmann deb...@abeckmann.de (2008-02-11): please add support for a configurable and preseedable do_symlinks setting in kernel-img.conf. I'd like to turn this off because I don't need these links. They are not used if they are in / and if I enable link_in_boot I get two superfluous grub entries. I suspect it's probably more likely to happen if you send a (tested) patch. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Processing of grub-installer_1.92_multi.changes
grub-installer_1.92_multi.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: grub-installer_1.92.dsc grub-installer_1.92.tar.gz grub-installer_1.92_amd64.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: https://lists.debian.org/e1wiion-0003nx...@franck.debian.org
Bug#496312: base-installer: Should install kernel and extra packages at the same time
Jérémy Bobbio lu...@debian.org (2008-08-24): Now that dpkg supports triggers, base-installer should install the kernel and extra packages at the same time. As triggers are used by initramfs-tools, this would allow us to only build the initrd once, avoiding multiple expensive computations on RAID installations, for example. Looking into update-initramfs calls I see flash-kernel (which I'm not going to touch), live-installer (ditto, for other reasons), and finish-install: finish-install.d/10update-initramfs which calls update-initramfs unconditionally when cryptsetup and console-setup are detected. It would probably be good to check whether that's still needed. Jérémy, do you have other things in mind? Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#586427: Support for dpkg's filtering mechanism (--path-exclude/--path-include)
Hi Martin, Martin Michlmayr t...@cyrius.com (2010-06-19): Package: base-installer Version: 1.107 Severity: wishlist dpkg in git has support for filtering files, i.e. a mechanism by which you can exclude certain files from being installed (e.g. /usr/share/doc, man pages). This is useful on embedded devices that don't have much storage. I believe this feature will land in squeeze so it would be great if the installer could support this. See #583902 on how this mechanism works. Any comments on which udeb should do this? rootskel, base-installer, or something else? base-installer/finish-install.d/90base-installer 7: /target/etc/dpkg/dpkg.cfg.d/force-unsafe-io base-installer/library.sh 37:DPKG_CONFDIR=/target/etc/dpkg/dpkg.cfg.d so if it's about configuring dpkg through dpkg.cfg.d, base-installer looks like the place to implement this. What do you think? Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#666974: marked as done (installs to /dev/sda when grub-installer/bootdev = /dev/sdb)
Your message dated Tue, 25 Feb 2014 15:35:56 + with message-id e1wik32-0004vn...@franck.debian.org and subject line Bug#666974: fixed in grub-installer 1.92 has caused the Debian Bug report #666974, regarding installs to /dev/sda when grub-installer/bootdev = /dev/sdb 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.) -- 666974: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=666974 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: grub-installer Version: 1.60+squeeze3 Severity: important *** Please type your report below this line *** When I specify in my preseeding file: d-i partman-auto/disk string /dev/sdb d-i grub-installer/bootdev string /dev/sdb grub-installer ignores me and installs to /dev/sda. partman-auto does the right thing. In some cases this can result in an unbootable system. Attached is a syslog excerpt for the execution of grub-installer, with DEBCONF_DEBUG=5 set in the boot line. You can see that it reads in the right disk name from the preseeding file, but somewhere in the step_os_probe .. step_bootdev .. step_install_loader sequence it changes $bootdev to /dev/sda. I have also observed (on other installations, using software RAID-1) that d-i grub-installer/bootdev string /dev/sda /dev/sdb is read in but also ultimately ignored and grub-installer only installs to /dev/sda. This installation was on a machine with two hard disks of identical size, but only one was intended to be used in the installation. The partioning was one ext3 partition for /, and one LVM for everything else. No separate /boot partition. No software raid is specified. I was able to stop the installer at the end and ran grub-installer again on one of the installer consoles: sh -vx /usr/bin/grub-installer /target 1/target/var/log/gi 21 This shows the problem comes when parsing the grub-mkdevicemap output. + os-prober + db_settitle debian-installer/grub-installer/title + _db_cmd SETTITLE debian-installer/grub-installer/title + IFS= printf %s\n SETTITLE debian-installer/grub-installer/title + IFS= read -r _db_internal_line + RET=OK + return 0 + tmpfile=/tmp/menu.lst.extras + [ -s /tmp/os-probed ] + q=grub-installer/only_debian + state=1 + [ ] + chroot /target grub-mkdevicemap --no-floppy -m+ -head -n1 + cut -f2 + default_bootdev_os=/dev/disk/by-id/scsi-35000c50017a6040b + [ /dev/disk/by-id/scsi-35000c50017a6040b ] + chroot /target readlink -f /dev/disk/by-id/scsi-35000c50017a6040b + default_bootdev=/dev/sda when I run that grub-mkdevicemap on the host after installation, I get: # grub-mkdevicemap --no-floppy -m - (hd0) /dev/disk/by-id/scsi-35000c50017a6040b (hd1) /dev/disk/by-id/scsi-35000c50017a7843b so it seems that there is a disconnect here from the specification of $bootdev and the attempt to guess $default_bootdev_os. The consequences are as follows. A little further down the script there is this, er, dense if statement: case $ARCH:$grub_package in *:grub|*:grub-pc|sparc:grub-ieee1275) if [ $(device_to_disk $cdsrc) = $default_bootdev ] || \ ([ -n $hdsrc ] [ $(device_to_disk $hdsrc) = $default_bootdev ]) || \ ([ $default_bootdev = '(hd0)' ] \ (([ -n $cdfs ] [ $cdfs != iso9660 ]) || \ [ $hybrid = true ])) || \ ([ $default_bootdev != '(hd0)' ] \ ! partmap $default_bootdev /dev/null \ ! grub_probe -t fs -d $default_bootdev /dev/null); then db_fget grub-installer/bootdev seen if [ $RET != true ]; then bootfs=$(findfs /boot) [ $bootfs ] || bootfs=$(findfs /) disk=$(device_to_disk $bootfs) db_set grub-installer/bootdev $disk state=2 fi fi ;; ... This fails out at the $default_bootdev = '(hd0)' comparison. + device_to_disk + echo + sed s:\(/dev/\(cciss\|ida\|rs\)/c[0-9]d[0-9][0-9]*\|/dev/mmcblk[0-9]\|/dev/\(ad\|da\)[0-9]\+\|/dev/[a-z]\+\).*:\1: + [ = /dev/sda ] + [ -n ] + [ /dev/sda = (hd0) ] Then we come to step_bootdev, a loop that continues until we have a suitable value of $state. There $default_bootdev supercedes what I set $bootdev to. $state is already set to 1 and $q to grub-installer/only_debian (see above). db_progress STEP 1 db_progress INFO grub-installer/progress/step_bootdev while : ; do if [ $state = 1 ]; then db_input high $q || true if ! db_go; then # back
grub-installer_1.92_multi.changes ACCEPTED into unstable
Accepted: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.8 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 14:08:07 + Source: grub-installer Binary: grub-installer Architecture: amd64 source Version: 1.92 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Debian Install System Team debian-boot@lists.debian.org Changed-By: Dimitri John Ledkov x...@ubuntu.com Closes: 666974 Launchpad-Bugs-Fixed: 1012629 Description: grub-installer - Install GRUB on a hard disk (udeb) Changes: grub-installer (1.92) unstable; urgency=medium . * Adapt patch from Guilhem Moulin to always honor grub-installer/bootdev, when it was preseeded, instead of insisting on automatic detection which may lead to unpredictable results (e.g. use a different device, or fail unattended installation). Closes: #666974. LP: #1012629. Checksums-Sha1: 431654046d9df9fe75c0dfea69b8e13bbcdf3896 1885 grub-installer_1.92.dsc b5488e898eaf5c024bdd977d9523156cdc9913d0 227488 grub-installer_1.92.tar.gz bcbe1c600b57d690d09c91142459f00989b311be 260778 grub-installer_1.92_amd64.udeb Checksums-Sha256: 075ba13eb65c77229ddadede5fe0ac1d4f89efab9595d05e2cc3b9eb53b47b80 1885 grub-installer_1.92.dsc 7ac83911fb1fc045cf6ce3af71daa918271d930165c6819bcccece21e94fb6f3 227488 grub-installer_1.92.tar.gz afa776f34cc6ecdea38e719174dc78924b3ff418128c3281d49626afd3fd8371 260778 grub-installer_1.92_amd64.udeb Files: c31d2a4f6373a0006d902c9f3365106b 1885 debian-installer standard grub-installer_1.92.dsc 3d3ef121e5c50edcd7ddb116895af686 227488 debian-installer standard grub-installer_1.92.tar.gz 18b97c86e4f621cafef51571069ee8df 260778 debian-installer standard grub-installer_1.92_amd64.udeb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJTDKWtAAoJEIh7YGGLPBau0csP/1e3uzNod1N6+6aC2qpzaXzJ wJfNwVcYlZP4e/wUw2e97S0M48E/sBNIh4ZPUyHvwGsK4NV7jGtGg9dPA79BIbWs ONFU0UuMDpm+rJF9uAJUd0vxHFS9+y5ZJtfKlMlOChlJJ3HSFgYkCJw6vK5sBNsc AZZJDuiO6AZP7/BrmPXbepdAtQOfuwYBITkWfhDckuXRYeiMgQXzd21pibjgmltM VHh91GVrl6p2cFswaQR4luqrUWp1+RdN4Km3awIK/IMbqWll3IBFNnxbaOeeaiXF XpMU+k9+xkahs9H5cMxVaJmtCbiXhNzQHCCiUFNq+Pcw3UEor8rLNrb5h9Mln4xa hqSlolcxrZtutckvDn7/DnUGk8I7kViqbWLRhIY0hVrlW2a93TB0onX1BUraClSA MbsAHSLzD3kyuPnERcBED1bUcm0gpe4VVpZiEeWoUWec1svKApUznN2/rjHXNj4s vdRmQLF6a7ETQdpRq2algC2VcWQ08AtL7jUvX7YFQ/XJ8R3BdjZrRt6yW9dEfV31 u72zLrEKJ+oaFtLDlu96xlumdXyYHKpzj8hCEonroSv+19rSw/LgNzData2sVb7e 8briF/PNhm05jU2WD/XZmC2Y9F7EYFZSvzw2wgL3gdanD/IDuPRGLxOknP1S/EmF IX6IbsFoL76cYd3AMMgM =BPVN -END PGP SIGNATURE- 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: https://lists.debian.org/e1wik32-0004vd...@franck.debian.org
Bug#731806: debian-installer: FTBFS on sparc: genisoimage errors
Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org (2014-02-13): [ TL;DR: d-i FTBFS on sparc, what do we do now? ] @Kurt: did anything change on the buildd setup side? Both lebrun and spontini got that FTBFS, while that wasn't the case before: https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=debian-installerarch=sparc Ping? Failing a short resolution, I'm tempted to pretend sparc isn't an issue, and maybe ask for a migration to testing + dak copy-installer. @debian-release: would that sound reasonable? Ping? @ftpmasters: I'm not sure an out-of-date build is going to be OK on the dak side. What do you think? Ping? Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#626217: Default /etc/kernel-img.conf should have do_symlinks=no; nothing needs those links now
On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 16:18 +0300, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Hi Ben, Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk (2011-05-16): On Mon, 2011-05-09 at 17:17 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: Package: base-installer Severity: normal Now that the various bootloaders have hooks to handle kernel installation, or otherwise automatically handle all kernels via their actual paths, do_symlinks doesn't seem necessary anymore. Please consider defaulting it to no. Josh, this is simply not true. Only grub and syslinux create menus of all installed kernels. I hope to get this changed for wheezy, but can't promise it. can you please send us an update to see how we stand WRT this bug report? I haven't done anything about this and don't expect to do so any time soon. I think the GRUB maintainers are hoping to be able to support ~all our Linux architectures, so we may at some point be able to stop supporting direct loading of the kernel by the stupider boot-loaders. We're not there yet, though. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. - Albert Einstein signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Bug#740073: netinst hangs on scanning CD-ROM [was: Message with no Package: tag cannot be processed! (Installation report)]
Control: reassign -1 debian-installer Control: retitle -1 netinst hangs on scanning CD-ROM On Ma, 25 feb 14, 15:10:34, Siarhei Akhramenia wrote: Package: network installer (netinst) Boot method: debian testing netinst Image version: http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/daily-builds/daily/arch-latest/amd64/iso-cd/debian-testing-amd64-netinst.iso Date: Tue 25 Feb 14:33:39 FET 2014 Machine: x64 IBM PC Processor: Intel Core i5-2500K CPU @ 3.7GHz Memory: 8 GB Partitions: 100M ext2 as /boot; 1G swap; 7G ext4 as /; 3G ext4 as /home Output of lspci -knn (or lspci -nn): virtualbox machine Base System Installation Checklist: [O] = OK, [E] = Error (please elaborate below), [ ] = didn't try it Initial boot: [ OK ] Detect network card:[ OK ] Configure network: [ OK ] Detect CD: [ OK ] Load installer modules: [ OK ] Detect hard drives: [ OK ] Partition hard drives: [ OK ] Install base system:[ OK ] Clock/timezone setup: [ OK ] User/password setup:[ OK ] Install tasks: [ E ] Install boot loader:[ ] Overall install:[ ] Comments/Problems: Problem with 'Configure mirrors' step; system hangs on scanning CD-ROM (???), looks like it doesn't see any mirrors; the problem also described by me here: http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?f=17t=111983 I tried debian testin netinst several times for the last 3 or 4 days, the problem is still there. I cannot use old images because they cannot finish installation and hang right after installing the system (cannot do finish steps). Please, guys, fix broken netinst for the testing branch. Thank you very much! On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Debian Bug Tracking System ow...@bugs.debian.org wrote: Your message didn't have a Package: line at the very first line of the mail body (part of the pseudo-header), or didn't have a Package: line at all. Unfortunatly, this means that your message has been ignored completely. Without this information we are unable to categorise or otherwise deal with your problem report. Please _resubmit_ your report to sub...@bugs.debian.org and tell us which package the report is for. For help, check out http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting. Your message was dated Tue, 25 Feb 2014 14:42:11 +0300 and had message-id CAMxPO=3GRj1tsy-p+126JbkWVh4a74u= jbt8f7uagyp-qx8...@mail.gmail.com and subject Installation report. The complete text of it is attached to this message. If you need any assistance or explanation please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org and include the the attached message. If you didn't send the attached message (spam was sent forging your from address), we apologize; please disregard this message. -- -1: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=-1 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- Forwarded message -- From: Siarhei Akhramenia dbz@gmail.com To: sub...@bugs.debian.org Cc: Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 14:42:11 +0300 Subject: Installation report Boot method: debian testing netinst Image version: http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/daily-builds/daily/arch-latest/amd64/iso-cd/debian-testing-amd64-netinst.iso Date: Tue 25 Feb 14:33:39 FET 2014 Machine: x64 IBM PC Processor: Intel Core i5-2500K CPU @ 3.7GHz Memory: 8 GB Partitions: 100M ext2 as /boot; 1G swap; 7G ext4 as /; 3G ext4 as /home Output of lspci -knn (or lspci -nn): virtualbox machine Base System Installation Checklist: [O] = OK, [E] = Error (please elaborate below), [ ] = didn't try it Initial boot: [ OK ] Detect network card:[ OK ] Configure network: [ OK ] Detect CD: [ OK ] Load installer modules: [ OK ] Detect hard drives: [ OK ] Partition hard drives: [ OK ] Install base system:[ OK ] Clock/timezone setup: [ OK ] User/password setup:[ OK ] Install tasks: [ E ] Install boot loader:[ ] Overall install:[ ] Comments/Problems: Problem with 'Configure mirrors' step; system hangs on scanning CD-ROM (???), looks like it doesn't see any mirrors; the problem also described by me here: http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?f=17t=111983 I tried debian testin netinst several times for the last 3 or 4 days, the problem is still there. I cannot use old images because they cannot finish installation and hang right after installing the system (cannot do finish steps). Please, guys, fix broken netinst for the testing branch. Thank you very much! -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#586427: Support for dpkg's filtering mechanism (--path-exclude/--path-include)
* Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org [2014-02-25 17:38]: so if it's about configuring dpkg through dpkg.cfg.d, base-installer looks like the place to implement this. What do you think? Sounds reasonable. Unfortunately, I don't have a specific need for this feature at the moment or time to implement anything. You're welcome to close the bug report if you wish, but otoh the feature might be of use to others. -- Martin Michlmayr http://www.cyrius.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140225171400.ga27...@jirafa.cyrius.com
Processed: Re: Bug#740073: netinst hangs on scanning CD-ROM [was: Message with no Package: tag cannot be processed! (Installation report)]
Processing control commands: reassign -1 debian-installer Bug #740073 [network installer (netinst)] Message with no Package: tag cannot be processed! (Installation report) Warning: Unknown package 'network' Warning: Unknown package 'installer' Warning: Unknown package 'netinst' Bug reassigned from package 'network installer (netinst)' to 'debian-installer'. Ignoring request to alter found versions of bug #740073 to the same values previously set Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #740073 to the same values previously set retitle -1 netinst hangs on scanning CD-ROM Bug #740073 [debian-installer] Message with no Package: tag cannot be processed! (Installation report) Changed Bug title to 'netinst hangs on scanning CD-ROM' from 'Message with no Package: tag cannot be processed! (Installation report)' -- 740073: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=740073 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: https://lists.debian.org/handler.s.b740073.139334884712254.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#626217: Default /etc/kernel-img.conf should have do_symlinks=no; nothing needs those links now
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 05:10:42PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote: On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 16:18 +0300, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Hi Ben, Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk (2011-05-16): On Mon, 2011-05-09 at 17:17 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: Package: base-installer Severity: normal Now that the various bootloaders have hooks to handle kernel installation, or otherwise automatically handle all kernels via their actual paths, do_symlinks doesn't seem necessary anymore. Please consider defaulting it to no. Josh, this is simply not true. Only grub and syslinux create menus of all installed kernels. I hope to get this changed for wheezy, but can't promise it. can you please send us an update to see how we stand WRT this bug report? I haven't done anything about this and don't expect to do so any time soon. I think the GRUB maintainers are hoping to be able to support ~all our Linux architectures, so we may at some point be able to stop supporting direct loading of the kernel by the stupider boot-loaders. We're not there yet, though. Do the different architectures use different pre-seeds, or different base-installer configurations? Might it be possible to keep do_symlinks=yes on architectures where the bootloader requires the symlinks, while eliminating it on the architectures that no longer need that? - Josh Triplett -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140225173031.GB1413@thin
Bug#586427: Support for dpkg's filtering mechanism (--path-exclude/--path-include)
Martin Michlmayr t...@cyrius.com (2014-02-25): * Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org [2014-02-25 17:38]: so if it's about configuring dpkg through dpkg.cfg.d, base-installer looks like the place to implement this. What do you think? Sounds reasonable. OK. Unfortunately, I don't have a specific need for this feature at the moment or time to implement anything. You're welcome to close the bug report if you wish, but otoh the feature might be of use to others. While I don't have a particular need for it, I indeed see how/why people would want this feature. I'll leave this bug report open for the time being. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#740073: netinst hangs on scanning CD-ROM [was: Message with no Package: tag cannot be processed! (Installation report)]
Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com (2014-02-25): On Ma, 25 feb 14, 15:10:34, Siarhei Akhramenia wrote: Comments/Problems: Problem with 'Configure mirrors' step; system hangs on scanning CD-ROM (???), looks like it doesn't see any mirrors; the problem also described by me here: http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?f=17t=111983 I tried debian testin netinst several times for the last 3 or 4 days, the problem is still there. I cannot use old images because they cannot finish installation and hang right after installing the system (cannot do finish steps). Please, guys, fix broken netinst for the testing branch. Thank you very much! I suspect this might be due to: http://bugs.debian.org/739989 You may want to use this instead in the meanwhile: http://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/amd64/20140207-00:17/ http://ftp.fr.debian.org/debian/dists/sid/main/installer-amd64/current/images/ (Probably the netboot/gtk/mini.iso one.) Since the relevant commit was reverted in the debian-installer-utils upload today, next daily d-i builds should work better. Next cdimage builds, picking fixed daily d-i builds, should also work better. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#626217: Default /etc/kernel-img.conf should have do_symlinks=no; nothing needs those links now
Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org (2014-02-25): On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 05:10:42PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote: I haven't done anything about this and don't expect to do so any time soon. Alright, thanks for the update. I think the GRUB maintainers are hoping to be able to support ~all our Linux architectures, so we may at some point be able to stop supporting direct loading of the kernel by the stupider boot-loaders. We're not there yet, though. Do the different architectures use different pre-seeds, or different base-installer configurations? Might it be possible to keep do_symlinks=yes on architectures where the bootloader requires the symlinks, while eliminating it on the architectures that no longer need that? See install_kernel_* in library.sh; I'm not very keen on adding complexity just for cosmetic reasons. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#626217: Default /etc/kernel-img.conf should have do_symlinks=no; nothing needs those links now
On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 09:30 -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 05:10:42PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote: On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 16:18 +0300, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Hi Ben, Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk (2011-05-16): On Mon, 2011-05-09 at 17:17 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: Package: base-installer Severity: normal Now that the various bootloaders have hooks to handle kernel installation, or otherwise automatically handle all kernels via their actual paths, do_symlinks doesn't seem necessary anymore. Please consider defaulting it to no. Josh, this is simply not true. Only grub and syslinux create menus of all installed kernels. I hope to get this changed for wheezy, but can't promise it. can you please send us an update to see how we stand WRT this bug report? I haven't done anything about this and don't expect to do so any time soon. I think the GRUB maintainers are hoping to be able to support ~all our Linux architectures, so we may at some point be able to stop supporting direct loading of the kernel by the stupider boot-loaders. We're not there yet, though. Do the different architectures use different pre-seeds, or different base-installer configurations? Might it be possible to keep do_symlinks=yes on architectures where the bootloader requires the symlinks, while eliminating it on the architectures that no longer need that? It might but I hardly think it's worth the effort. For example lilo still exists so we can't get rid of them on x86 yet. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. - Albert Einstein signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#731806: debian-installer: FTBFS on sparc: genisoimage errors
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 04:38:36PM +0300, Cyril Brulebois wrote: [ TL;DR: d-i FTBFS on sparc, what do we do now? ] Thomas Schmitt scdbac...@gmx.net (2013-12-10): Cyril Brulebois wrote: genisoimage: Error: './tmp/miniiso/cd_tree/boot/.' and './tmp/miniiso/cd_tree/boot/..' have the same ISO9660 name ''. [...] Probably some FS-dependent fun? Anyone would have a clue about it? Looks like an internal error of genisoimage. '.' should be mapped to a 0x00-byte in ECMA-119, '..' to 0x01. See ECMA-119, 6.8.2.2 Identification of directories. These names are reserved for that purpose. Any other colliding ECMA-119 names should be handled by mangling. Thanks, Thomas. @Kurt: did anything change on the buildd setup side? Both lebrun and spontini got that FTBFS, while that wasn't the case before: https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=debian-installerarch=sparc Nothing changed recently. They've been using tar based chroots for at least 6 months I think. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140225175431.ga1...@roeckx.be
Bug#626217: Default /etc/kernel-img.conf should have do_symlinks=no; nothing needs those links now
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 05:45:29PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote: On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 09:30 -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 05:10:42PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote: On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 16:18 +0300, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Hi Ben, Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk (2011-05-16): On Mon, 2011-05-09 at 17:17 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: Package: base-installer Severity: normal Now that the various bootloaders have hooks to handle kernel installation, or otherwise automatically handle all kernels via their actual paths, do_symlinks doesn't seem necessary anymore. Please consider defaulting it to no. Josh, this is simply not true. Only grub and syslinux create menus of all installed kernels. I hope to get this changed for wheezy, but can't promise it. can you please send us an update to see how we stand WRT this bug report? I haven't done anything about this and don't expect to do so any time soon. I think the GRUB maintainers are hoping to be able to support ~all our Linux architectures, so we may at some point be able to stop supporting direct loading of the kernel by the stupider boot-loaders. We're not there yet, though. Do the different architectures use different pre-seeds, or different base-installer configurations? Might it be possible to keep do_symlinks=yes on architectures where the bootloader requires the symlinks, while eliminating it on the architectures that no longer need that? It might but I hardly think it's worth the effort. For example lilo still exists so we can't get rid of them on x86 yet. Arguably it should be the job of the lilo maintainer scripts to work around the deficiencies of lilo... But in any case, it's clear this won't be changing any time soon, sigh. - Josh Triplett -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140225175238.GA2136@thin
Installation issue hostname and domain gateway ML6714 dual boot Windows 7 home premium casual user here
Thank you for your efforts, I made it past the portion of install to connect to my home WiFi, wlan0, and it succesfully connected using my WPA2 security code but then. I was not able to get past the hostname and domain name requirement for installation on my first 3 attempts to install PRETTY_NAME=Debian GNU/Linux 7 (wheezy) NAME=Debian GNU/Linux VERSION_ID=7 VERSION=7 (wheezy) ID=debian ANSI_COLOR=1;31 HOME_URL=http://www.debian.org/; SUPPORT_URL=http://www.debian.org/support/; BUG_REPORT_URL=http://bugs.debian.org/; dggateway@debiangnome:~$ I had to go back to Windows Help to Understad that I am just in a HomeGroup / WorkGroup for my installation of Windows 7. I think this is a issue for other casual users like me. If this could be explained during the installation setup and install, that would be great. Could there be and option for the default home user of Windows to set these setting so as to be able to talk to other computers that are running Windows and sitting behind their home router connected to cable internet or phone company DSL?? I still don't really understand the implications of what I entered. I made up names for Hostname and Domain. Thank you for everything and I hope my feed back helps. Paul Butalla prb...@yahoo.com
Bug#666766: debian-installer: 00CDMountPoint apt configuration file has an incorrect syntax
Hi,
2014-02-25 16:31, Cyril Brulebois:
[...]
apt.conf(5) require semicolons after closing parentheses as well, so
the right syntax would be: […]
This manpage doesn't say that AFAICT. It even points to:
/usr/share/doc/apt/examples/apt.conf
which ends with:
DPkg
{
// Probably don't want to use force-downgrade..
Options {--force-overwrite;}
}
so I'm not sure cupt is right in complaining about that.
FTR, I was referring to the start of the SYNTAX section, where two examples
include semicolons after each closing scope, nowhere is said these are
optional and two times there is explicitly mentioned that semicolons in
certain cases are mandatory.
Reread that paragraph again 3 more times today I agree that there
might be different ways of reading that.
Anyway, thanks for taking care of this, much appreciated.
--
Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, JID: jackyf.devel(maildog)gmail.com
C++ GNU/Linux userspace developer, Debian Developer
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140225190732.GA23986@debian-w500.Elisa
Bug#740068: debian-installer: segfaults when built against testing
Hi, On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 02:39:23PM +0300, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org (2014-02-25): Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org (2014-02-25): It doesn't seem to happen when building against unstable, but it would be nice to make sure we spot the reason/bugfix and possibly speed up its propagation to testing. I forgot to mention it's netboot/gtk/mini.iso on amd64, in case it matters. So here are the results of some cross tests, using this: git clean -xdf make rebuild_netboot-gtk USE_UDEBS_FROM=... chroot \ USE_UDEBS_FROM | jessie | sid - jessie |OK| segfault - sid | segfault |OK (FTR my chroots are up-to-date and sid's has 2.18-3.) This might be due to some libc mismatch (2.17 vs. 2.18) I guess? Yes, we get this bug happening regularly because the binaries on the image went through the library reduction process with a given libc (here 2.18), and later a different version of the libc is unpacked over it (here 2.17). Therefore some symbols are missings, causing the segfault. In addition I think there are also some version mismatches between libnss-* and libc6 when the old one is getting unpacked. This rings some bells: | eglibc (2.18-2) unstable; urgency=medium | | [ Aurelien Jarno ] | * any/local-ldconfig-ignore-ld.so.diff: new patch to ignore the dynamic | linker in ldconfig. Closes: #699206, #707185, #727786, #736097, | #739734, #739758. No it's not related to that. This bug is when you have multiple libc of the same architecture on a system (e.g. libc6:amd64 and libc6-amd64:i386, or libc6:i386 and libc-i386:amd64) eglibc maintainers, can you please suggest further directions for me to look into? Initial d-i bug report with busybox sh segfaults: http://bugs.debian.org/740068 You just have to ensure that the libc used for building the image is the same as the one used later in d-i. -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140225192412.gg5...@hall.aurel32.net
Bug#740068: debian-installer: segfaults when built against testing
Hi, Aurelien Jarno aurel...@aurel32.net (2014-02-25): Yes, we get this bug happening regularly because the binaries on the image went through the library reduction process with a given libc (here 2.18), and later a different version of the libc is unpacked over it (here 2.17). Therefore some symbols are missings, causing the segfault. In addition I think there are also some version mismatches between libnss-* and libc6 when the old one is getting unpacked. alright, thanks. This rings some bells: | eglibc (2.18-2) unstable; urgency=medium | | [ Aurelien Jarno ] | * any/local-ldconfig-ignore-ld.so.diff: new patch to ignore the dynamic | linker in ldconfig. Closes: #699206, #707185, #727786, #736097, | #739734, #739758. No it's not related to that. This bug is when you have multiple libc of the same architecture on a system (e.g. libc6:amd64 and libc6-amd64:i386, or libc6:i386 and libc-i386:amd64) OK, thanks. eglibc maintainers, can you please suggest further directions for me to look into? Initial d-i bug report with busybox sh segfaults: http://bugs.debian.org/740068 You just have to ensure that the libc used for building the image is the same as the one used later in d-i. Said slightly otherwise, this issue should go away as soon as eglibc hits testing. I guess we can live with a few days of breakages, if that only happens when a new major eglibc release appears in unstable, and lasts until it's ready to migrate to testing. If that's correct, it would be nice to announce new major releases to -boot@ a few days before it gets uploaded. Or I could monitor that along with linux kernel versions… Will think about it. Thanks again for the explanations; I'll keep this bug report open as a placeholder for the time being. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#731806: debian-installer: FTBFS on sparc: genisoimage errors
On 2014-02-25 17:56, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org (2014-02-13): [...] Failing a short resolution, I'm tempted to pretend sparc isn't an issue, and maybe ask for a migration to testing + dak copy-installer. @debian-release: would that sound reasonable? Ping? [...] Mraw, KiBi. To my knowledge, there has been no visible attempt to keep sparc alive in testing and, indeed, no sparc porters objecting to this suggestion. Based on that, I would say it sounds entirely reasonable to ignore sparc. ~Niels -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/530cf19c.8000...@thykier.net
Bug#737750: debian-installer: Netboot initrd does not download ata-modules or sata-modules udebs
On 23/02/14 05:58, Ben Hutchings wrote: Control: tag -1 unreproducible On Sat, 2014-02-22 at 21:43 -0600, Elizabeth Myers wrote: On 05/02/14 11:45, Ben Hutchings wrote: On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 12:17 -0500, Elizabeth Myers wrote: Package: debian-installer Version: wheezy Severity: normal Tags: d-i Debian's initrd.gz for debian-installer does not download ata-modules or sata-modules udebs, rendering the initrd useless on systems with AHCI controllers - more specifically, it will boot, but detect no disks. Many systems lack a legacy IDE mode and therefore this is a serious problem. I can attach other logfiles later, but the jist of it is that it doesn't even attempt to fetch the udebs. Presumably it has failed to detect the network controller, so it can't download anything. Please can you specify what network controller(s) this sytem has? The command 'lspci -vnn' should provide the model name and numeric ID for all PCI devices; look for 'Network controller' or 'Ethernet controller'. Ben. No. That is not the problem. It has network. There is simply no ata-modules or sata-modules references anywhere in the initrd. It never downloads them because it doesn't know to get them. Funny, it works for everyone else. Ben. 1) If it's so funny, then how come I'm not laughing? Please don't be a snob. 2) http://dmytro.github.io/2012/06/21/debian_cobbler.html - the bug has been there. It's only in the netboot installer. It doesn't include the correct udebs, period, nor does it download them. Even grep -r of the entire initrd reveals it doesn't know where to get them. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/530cf277.5020...@interlinked.me
Bug#737750: debian-installer: Netboot initrd does not download ata-modules or sata-modules udebs
On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 13:43 -0600, Elizabeth Myers wrote: On 23/02/14 05:58, Ben Hutchings wrote: Control: tag -1 unreproducible On Sat, 2014-02-22 at 21:43 -0600, Elizabeth Myers wrote: On 05/02/14 11:45, Ben Hutchings wrote: On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 12:17 -0500, Elizabeth Myers wrote: Package: debian-installer Version: wheezy Severity: normal Tags: d-i Debian's initrd.gz for debian-installer does not download ata-modules or sata-modules udebs, rendering the initrd useless on systems with AHCI controllers - more specifically, it will boot, but detect no disks. Many systems lack a legacy IDE mode and therefore this is a serious problem. I can attach other logfiles later, but the jist of it is that it doesn't even attempt to fetch the udebs. Presumably it has failed to detect the network controller, so it can't download anything. Please can you specify what network controller(s) this sytem has? The command 'lspci -vnn' should provide the model name and numeric ID for all PCI devices; look for 'Network controller' or 'Ethernet controller'. Ben. No. That is not the problem. It has network. There is simply no ata-modules or sata-modules references anywhere in the initrd. It never downloads them because it doesn't know to get them. Funny, it works for everyone else. Ben. 1) If it's so funny, then how come I'm not laughing? Please don't be a snob. Sorry, I meant funny-strange not funny-ha-ha. 2) http://dmytro.github.io/2012/06/21/debian_cobbler.html - the bug has been there. It's only in the netboot installer. It doesn't include the correct udebs, period, nor does it download them. Even grep -r of the entire initrd reveals it doesn't know where to get them. I just tested it in KVM/QEMU. It does download ata-modules. Are you using the current (7.4) netboot images? If I remember rightly, old netboot images may stop working after a point release if you don't keep the corresponding udebs on a local mirror. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Always try to do things in chronological order; it's less confusing that way. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
