Bug#955507: Removed package(s) from unstable

2020-04-02 Thread Debian FTP Masters 
We believe that the bug you reported is now fixed; the following
package(s) have been removed from unstable:

lilo-installer |   1.62 | source, amd64, i386

--- Reason ---
ROM; No longer needed for d-i
--

Note that the package(s) have simply been removed from the tag
database and may (or may not) still be in the pool; this is not a bug.
The package(s) will be physically removed automatically when no suite
references them (and in the case of source, when no binary references
it).  Please also remember that the changes have been done on the
master archive and will not propagate to any mirrors until the next
dinstall run at the earliest.

Packages are usually not removed from testing by hand. Testing tracks
unstable and will automatically remove packages which were removed
from unstable when removing them from testing causes no dependency
problems. The release team can force a removal from testing if it is
really needed, please contact them if this should be the case.

We try to close bugs which have been reported against this package
automatically. But please check all old bugs, if they were closed
correctly or should have been re-assigned to another package.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.  If you
have further comments please address them to 955...@bugs.debian.org.

The full log for this bug can be viewed at https://bugs.debian.org/955507

This message was generated automatically; if you believe that there is
a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing
ftpmas...@ftp-master.debian.org.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Scott Kitterman (the ftpmaster behind the curtain)

Bug#872094: marked as done (lilo-installer: fdisk dependency needed)

2020-04-02 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System 
Your message dated Fri, 03 Apr 2020 04:48:27 +
with message-id 
and subject line Bug#955507: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #872094,
regarding lilo-installer: fdisk dependency needed
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.)


-- 
872094: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=872094
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Source: lilo-installer
Version: 1.53
Severity: important
User: util-li...@packages.debian.org
Usertags: fdisk-dependency

Hello,

As recently announced on debian-devel-announce[1] packages who need
any of sfdisk, cfdisk or fdisk will need to add a dependency on the
new fdisk package.

Your package lilo-installer showed up on codesearch.debian.net and a
very quick analysis suggested you might want to add a dependency
(and/or build-dependency if you use it at build-time, eg. tests).

Please use the backwards-compatible way of specifying the dependency
as suggested in the debian-devel-announce mail:

fdisk | util-linux (<< 2.29.2-3~)

(and if only for tests you might want to add the build profile
)

Please reassign this bug report to the binary package shipping the
affected part of your source.

If your more detailed analysis shows this should be a recommends,
suggests or even no relationship at all to the fdisk package then
please just close this bug report stating the results of your
analysis (and if so sorry for bothering you).

Regards, Andreas Henriksson

[1]:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2017/08/msg5.html 
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 1.62+rm

Dear submitter,

as the package lilo-installer has just been removed from the Debian archive
unstable we hereby close the associated bug reports.  We are sorry
that we couldn't deal with your issue properly.

For details on the removal, please see https://bugs.debian.org/955507

The version of this package that was in Debian prior to this removal
can still be found using http://snapshot.debian.org/.

Please note that the changes have been done on the master archive and
will not propagate to any mirrors until the next dinstall run at the
earliest.

This message was generated automatically; if you believe that there is
a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing
ftpmas...@ftp-master.debian.org.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Scott Kitterman (the ftpmaster behind the curtain)--- End Message ---

Bug#412166: marked as done (Suggests to use MBR on a strange disk)

2020-04-02 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System 
Your message dated Fri, 03 Apr 2020 04:48:27 +
with message-id 
and subject line Bug#955507: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #412166,
regarding Suggests to use MBR on a strange disk
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.)


-- 
412166: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=412166
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: installation-reports

Boot method: D-I Netboot
Image version:
http://people.debian.org/~joeyh/d-i/images/daily/netboot/debian-installer/i386/{initrd.gz,linux}
Date: Friday February 23, 2007 22:00 (EST)

Machine: Generic whitebox PC (motherboard = Abit BH6)
Processor: Intel Pentium III 600 MHz
Memory: 128 Mb
Partitions:
(df -Tl)
FilesystemType   1K-blocks  Used Available Use% Mounted on
/dev/hde2  xfs  244192 92444151748  38% /
tmpfstmpfs   63544 0 63544   0% /lib/init/rw
udev tmpfs   1024096 10144   1% /dev
tmpfstmpfs   63544 0 63544   0% /dev/shm
/dev/hde9  xfs12191040   544  12190496   1% /backup
/dev/hde6  xfs 2921568   300   2921268   1% /home
/dev/hde8  xfs  975104   288974816   1% /svn
/dev/hde3  xfs  244192   288243904   1% /tmp
/dev/hde7  xfs 2431584223444   2208140  10% /usr
/dev/hde5  xfs  509248165668343580  33% /var

Output of lspci -nn and lspci -vnn:

00:00.0 Host bridge [0600]: Intel Corporation 440BX/ZX/DX -
82443BX/ZX/DX Host bridge [8086:7190] (rev 03)
00:01.0 PCI bridge [0604]: Intel Corporation 440BX/ZX/DX -
82443BX/ZX/DX AGP bridge [8086:7191] (rev 03)
00:07.0 ISA bridge [0601]: Intel Corporation 82371AB/EB/MB PIIX4 ISA
[8086:7110] (rev 02)
00:07.1 IDE interface [0101]: Intel Corporation 82371AB/EB/MB PIIX4 IDE
[8086:7111] (rev 01)
00:07.2 USB Controller [0c03]: Intel Corporation 82371AB/EB/MB PIIX4
USB [8086:7112] (rev 01)
00:07.3 Bridge [0680]: Intel Corporation 82371AB/EB/MB PIIX4 ACPI
[8086:7113] (rev 02)
00:09.0 Ethernet controller [0200]: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd.
RTL-8139/8139C/8139C+ [10ec:8139] (rev 10)
00:0d.0 Mass storage controller [0180]: Promise Technology, Inc. 20269
[105a:4d69] (rev 02)
01:00.0 VGA compatible controller [0300]: Matrox Graphics, Inc. MGA
G400/G450 [102b:0525] (rev 04)

00:00.0 Host bridge [0600]: Intel Corporation 440BX/ZX/DX -
82443BX/ZX/DX Host bridge [8086:7190] (rev 03)
Flags: bus master, medium devsel, latency 32
Memory at d000 (32-bit, prefetchable) [size=64M]
Capabilities: [a0] AGP version 1.0

00:01.0 PCI bridge [0604]: Intel Corporation 440BX/ZX/DX -
82443BX/ZX/DX AGP bridge [8086:7191] (rev 03) (prog-if 00 [Normal
decode])
Flags: bus master, 66MHz, medium devsel, latency 64
Bus: primary=00, secondary=01, subordinate=01, sec-latency=32
Memory behind bridge: d400-d7ff
Prefetchable memory behind bridge: d800-d9ff

00:07.0 ISA bridge [0601]: Intel Corporation 82371AB/EB/MB PIIX4 ISA
[8086:7110] (rev 02)
Flags: bus master, medium devsel, latency 0

00:07.1 IDE interface [0101]: Intel Corporation 82371AB/EB/MB PIIX4 IDE
[8086:7111] (rev 01) (prog-if 80 [Master])
Flags: medium devsel
I/O ports at f000 [size=16]

00:07.2 USB Controller [0c03]: Intel Corporation 82371AB/EB/MB PIIX4
USB [8086:7112] (rev 01) (prog-if 00 [UHCI])
Flags: bus master, medium devsel, latency 32, IRQ 11
I/O ports at d000 [size=32]

00:07.3 Bridge [0680]: Intel Corporation 82371AB/EB/MB PIIX4 ACPI
[8086:7113] (rev 02)
Flags: medium devsel, IRQ 9

00:09.0 Ethernet controller [0200]: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd.
RTL-8139/8139C/8139C+ [10ec:8139] (rev 10)
Subsystem: D-Link System Inc Unknown device [1186:1301]
Flags: bus master, medium devsel, latency 32, IRQ 11
I/O ports at d400 [size=256]
Memory at db004000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=256]
Capabilities: [50] Power Management version 2

00:0d.0 Mass storage controller [0180]: Promise Technology, Inc. 20269
[105a:4d69] (rev 02) (prog-if 85)
Subsystem: Promise Technology, Inc. Ultra133TX2 [105a:4d68]
Flags: bus master, 66MHz, slow devsel, latency 32, IRQ 15
I/O ports at d800 [size=8]
I/O ports at dc00 [size=4]
I/O ports at e000 [size=8]
I/O ports at e400 [size=4]
I/O ports at e800 [size=16]
Memory at db00 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=16K]
Expansion ROM at 1000 [size=16K]
Capabilities: [60]

Bug#451121: marked as done (lilo-installer: doesn't show descriptive error messages)

2020-04-02 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System 
Your message dated Fri, 03 Apr 2020 04:48:27 +
with message-id 
and subject line Bug#955507: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #451121,
regarding lilo-installer: doesn't show descriptive error messages
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.)


-- 
451121: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=451121
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: lilo-installer
Version: 1.25

I was trying to install lilo using current testing installer. I made a raid0
from my disks, and when I was trying to put lilo here Debian installer showed
my error message sth. like this: Running lilo failed - error number "1". It
hard to guess what it means. But in a syslog I have this: 

Nov 13 14:18:42 lilo-installer: 
Nov 13 14:18:42 lilo-installer: Fatal: 
Nov 13 14:18:42 lilo-installer: Only RAID1 devices are supported as boot
devices Nov 13 14:18:42 lilo-installer: 

This message "Only RAID1 devices are supported as boot devices" should be
displayed normally in installer GUI not just in syslog.


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 1.62+rm

Dear submitter,

as the package lilo-installer has just been removed from the Debian archive
unstable we hereby close the associated bug reports.  We are sorry
that we couldn't deal with your issue properly.

For details on the removal, please see https://bugs.debian.org/955507

The version of this package that was in Debian prior to this removal
can still be found using http://snapshot.debian.org/.

Please note that the changes have been done on the master archive and
will not propagate to any mirrors until the next dinstall run at the
earliest.

This message was generated automatically; if you believe that there is
a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing
ftpmas...@ftp-master.debian.org.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Scott Kitterman (the ftpmaster behind the curtain)--- End Message ---

Bug#428329: marked as done (issues setting up crypto with GPT disk label)

2020-04-02 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System 
Your message dated Fri, 03 Apr 2020 04:48:27 +
with message-id 
and subject line Bug#955507: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #428329,
regarding issues setting up crypto with GPT disk label
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.)


-- 
428329: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=428329
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: debian-installer
Version: Debian 4.0r0 DVD1 "etch"

Hello,

I can setup a crypted root filesystem when I select
the Partition table type "msdos". But then I can not
use the whole disk (2.3 TB).

The debian-installer/initramfs is buggy when I
use the "GUID Partition Table (GPT)" and I want to use
a crypted root filesystem. (Not with md!).

I can setup a running system with "gpt" when I setup an
uncrypted root filesystem (and then I can use the whole
2.3 TB).

-

The details:


1. Hardware what I use
2. Preperation
3. What works! (First situation)
4. What NOT works! (Second situation)
5. Result


-


1. Hardware what I use:
===

Motherboard with AMD-K7 (Sokel-A) 1 GHz.
1.3 GB RAM.

ICP Vortex RAID-Controller with
4 * 750 GB drives: In a RAID-5
configuration I have a drive with 2.3 TB.
The controller is used by the kernel module "gdth".
The Firmware in the controller is the newest.
In "etch" the version of the kernel driver "gdth"
is 3.05.

The producer "ICP vortex" tells me in an
email that I have to use the GUID Partition Table (GPT)
to use the full size of the Host Drive (/dev/sda).
The Kernel module "gdth" must be version >= 3.04 .

I have only a DVD-ROM on /dev/hdd. No other
drives (like /dev/hda, /dev/hdc or /dev/sdb ...).

>From /dev/hdd I boot the etch-DVD.
 

2. Preparation:
===

Bevor the two situations which I describe
here I fill the begin of the Host drive
/dev/sda with zeros:

dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda
(CTRL-C after 10 seconds)
 


3. What works! (First situation):
=

I start "etch" with expert modus.

At the "Partition method" I select "Manual".

  +& [!!] Partition disks +-+
  & &
  & This is an overview of your currently configured partitions and mount   &
  & points. Select a partition to modify its settings (file system, mount   &
  & point, etc.), a free space to create partitions, or a device to &
  & initialise its partition table. &
  & &
  &   Guided partitioning   &
  &   Help on partitioning  &
  & &
  &   --> SCSI1 (0,1,0) (sda) - 2.3 TB ICP Host Drive #01   &
  & &
  &   Undo changes to partitions&
  &   Finish partitioning and write changes to disk &
  & &
  &&
  & &
  +-+

( "-->" means that I select this option)

   +---& [!!] Partition disks ++
   &   &
   & You have selected an entire device to partition. If you proceed with  &
   & creating a new partition table on the device, then all current&
   & partitions will be removed.   &
   &   &
   & Note that you will be able to undo this operation later if you wish.  &
   &   &
   & Create new empty partition table on this device?  &
   &   &
   &   --->  &
   &   &
   +--

Bug#777749: marked as done (lilo-installer: x32 port)

2020-04-02 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System 
Your message dated Fri, 03 Apr 2020 04:48:27 +
with message-id 
and subject line Bug#955507: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #49,
regarding lilo-installer: x32 port
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.)


-- 
49: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=49
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: lilo-installer
Version: 1.47
Severity: wishlist
Tags: d-i patch
User: debian-...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: port-x32 di-x32

Hi!
Please apply the attached patch.  It adds support for the x32 architecture.
The patch can be applied directly to the d-i/lilo-installer git repository.

If you want to test, as the patch-set for x32 in d-i involves around twenty
packages, you'll want ready packages from the repository at debian-x32.org.
Complete d-i isos are available at http://debian-x32.org/#debian-installer 
while debs/udebs/modified sources at http://ftp.debian-x32.org/debian/


-- System Information:
Debian Release: 8.0
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (600, 'unstable'), (500, 'unreleased'), (50, 'experimental')
Architecture: x32 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 3.19.0-x32 (SMP w/6 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: sysvinit (via /sbin/init)
>From 8d71debe874d8878600a57b1ee7033b0b9c4a2fd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Adam Borowski 
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 07:17:08 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Add support for x32.

---
 debian/control   | 2 +-
 debian/isinstallable | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/debian/control b/debian/control
index 24993e8..547981a 100644
--- a/debian/control
+++ b/debian/control
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ Vcs-Browser: http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=d-i/lilo-installer.git
 Vcs-Git: git://anonscm.debian.org/d-i/lilo-installer.git
 
 Package: lilo-installer
-Architecture: i386 amd64
+Architecture: i386 amd64 x32
 Provides: bootable-system
 Depends: ${misc:Depends}, kernel-installer, di-utils (>= 1.15), di-utils-mapdevfs, fdisk-udeb, os-prober
 XB-Installer-Menu-Item: 7500
diff --git a/debian/isinstallable b/debian/isinstallable
index 80a7939..530e491 100755
--- a/debian/isinstallable
+++ b/debian/isinstallable
@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ log() {
 
 ARCH="$(archdetect)"
 case $ARCH in
-i386/mac|amd64/mac|i386/efi|amd64/efi)
+i386/mac|amd64/mac|x32/mac|i386/efi|amd64/efi|x32/efi)
 	# LILO stands a better chance of working in BIOS compatibility mode,
 	# where /sys/firmware/efi doesn't exist.
 	# Note: depends on partman-efi to load the efivars module!
-- 
2.1.4

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 1.62+rm

Dear submitter,

as the package lilo-installer has just been removed from the Debian archive
unstable we hereby close the associated bug reports.  We are sorry
that we couldn't deal with your issue properly.

For details on the removal, please see https://bugs.debian.org/955507

The version of this package that was in Debian prior to this removal
can still be found using http://snapshot.debian.org/.

Please note that the changes have been done on the master archive and
will not propagate to any mirrors until the next dinstall run at the
earliest.

This message was generated automatically; if you believe that there is
a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing
ftpmas...@ftp-master.debian.org.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Scott Kitterman (the ftpmaster behind the curtain)--- End Message ---

Bug#183366: marked as done (lilo-installer: Installation fail to boot on machine with HD on hdd)

2020-04-02 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System 
Your message dated Fri, 03 Apr 2020 04:48:27 +
with message-id 
and subject line Bug#955507: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #183366,
regarding lilo-installer: Installation fail to boot on machine with HD on hdd
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.)


-- 
183366: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=183366
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---

Package: lilo-installer
Version: 0.0.10

When installing in VMWare, on a machien with two CDROM players (hda
and hdc), and one IDE hard drive (hdd), lilo-installer seem to install
just fine on /dev/ide/host0/bus1/target1/lun0/disc, with a few warnings:

  Warning: LBA32 addressing assumed
  Warning: /dev/hdd is not on the first disk
  Added Linux *

After reboot it fails to boot with this message:

  L 07 07 07 ...

The same configuration boots just fine when using grub-installer.

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 1.62+rm

Dear submitter,

as the package lilo-installer has just been removed from the Debian archive
unstable we hereby close the associated bug reports.  We are sorry
that we couldn't deal with your issue properly.

For details on the removal, please see https://bugs.debian.org/955507

The version of this package that was in Debian prior to this removal
can still be found using http://snapshot.debian.org/.

Please note that the changes have been done on the master archive and
will not propagate to any mirrors until the next dinstall run at the
earliest.

This message was generated automatically; if you believe that there is
a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing
ftpmas...@ftp-master.debian.org.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Scott Kitterman (the ftpmaster behind the curtain)--- End Message ---

Bug#283427: marked as done (Lilo installation failed)

2020-04-02 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System 
Your message dated Fri, 03 Apr 2020 04:48:27 +
with message-id 
and subject line Bug#955507: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #283427,
regarding Lilo installation failed
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.)


-- 
283427: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=283427
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---

Package: debian-installer
Version: Daily build 20041121
Severity: Important bug
Priority: normal
tags: sarge, d-i

Hi,
Installation of lilo failed lilo step with the manual steps ( after cancelling 
Grub install )...

The only solution I found :
go into console -> #chroot /target /bin/bash -> configure source.list of apt, 
install lilo -> execute lilo command to write the mbr...
It happen during the installation on a SATA disk, but I hink it is not linked to 
it...



Thanks for your actions




--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 1.62+rm

Dear submitter,

as the package lilo-installer has just been removed from the Debian archive
unstable we hereby close the associated bug reports.  We are sorry
that we couldn't deal with your issue properly.

For details on the removal, please see https://bugs.debian.org/955507

The version of this package that was in Debian prior to this removal
can still be found using http://snapshot.debian.org/.

Please note that the changes have been done on the master archive and
will not propagate to any mirrors until the next dinstall run at the
earliest.

This message was generated automatically; if you believe that there is
a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing
ftpmas...@ftp-master.debian.org.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Scott Kitterman (the ftpmaster behind the curtain)--- End Message ---

Bug#380416: marked as done (lilo fails to install when using XFS root partition on AMD64)

2020-04-02 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System 
Your message dated Fri, 03 Apr 2020 04:48:27 +
with message-id 
and subject line Bug#955507: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #380416,
regarding lilo fails to install when using XFS root partition on 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.)


-- 
380416: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=380416
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---

Package: lilo-installer
Version: 1.16

I'm using the latest daily build of the AMD64 netinst CD.  I have a
single SATA drive, and I selected "use entire drive" in the
partitioner and it created one large root partition and one swap
partition.  Then I changed the root partition to XFS.  There was a
warning about XFS + grub and the lilo installer ran instead of the
grub one.

The LILO installer asks for the installation target and gives three choices:
1) /dev/hdc: Master Boot Record
2) /dev/sda1: new Debian partition
3) Other (advanced)

/dev/hdc is my CDROM, /dev/sda is my SATA HD, so I chose option 2.  It
asks if I would like to make the partition active and warns that
otherwise I won't be able to boot.  I say yes and there's an error
message: "An installation step failed.  You can try to run the
failing..." etc.  In any case, the "Install the LILO boot loader on a
hard disk" step fails.

Ctrl-Alt-F4, tells me:
grub-installer: /boot on xfs, unsafe to install grub
grub-installer: /boot on xfs, unsafe to install grub
main-menu: INFO: Menu item 'lilo-installer' selected
main-menu: I: setting partition to active
main-menu: /dev/scsi/host2/bus0/target0/lun1/disc: No medium found
main-menu:
main-menu: sfdisk:
main-menu: cannot open /dev/scsi/host2/bus0/target0/lun1/disc read-write
main-menu: WARNING **: Configuring 'lilo-installer' failed with error code 1
main-menu: WARNING **: Menu item 'lilo-installer' failed.

I went back to the main menu, enabled the web server that shows the
logs, noticed that the partman log says that my HD is
/dev/scsi/host1/bus0/target0/lun0/disc, so I went back to the LILO
menu and tried that in the Other option, but the result was the same:

Jul 29 18:06:59 grub-installer: /boot on xfs, unsafe to install grub
Jul 29 18:07:00 grub-installer: /boot on xfs, unsafe to install grub
Jul 29 18:07:07 main-menu[2214]: INFO: Menu item 'lilo-installer' selected
Jul 29 18:07:16 main-menu[2214]: (process:1635): I: Setting partition
/dev/sda1 to active...
Jul 29 18:07:16 main-menu[2214]: (process:1635):
/dev/scsi/host2/bus0/target0/lun1/disc: No medium found
Jul 29 18:07:16 main-menu[2214]: (process:1635):
Jul 29 18:07:16 main-menu[2214]: (process:1635): sfdisk:
Jul 29 18:07:16 main-menu[2214]: (process:1635): cannot open
/dev/scsi/host2/bus0/target0/lun1/disc read-write
Jul 29 18:07:16 main-menu[2214]: WARNING **: Configuring
'lilo-installer' failed with error code 1
Jul 29 18:07:16 main-menu[2214]: WARNING **: Menu item 'lilo-installer' failed.
Jul 29 18:07:17 grub-installer: /boot on xfs, unsafe to install grub
Jul 29 18:07:17 grub-installer: /boot on xfs, unsafe to install grub


Alex

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 1.62+rm

Dear submitter,

as the package lilo-installer has just been removed from the Debian archive
unstable we hereby close the associated bug reports.  We are sorry
that we couldn't deal with your issue properly.

For details on the removal, please see https://bugs.debian.org/955507

The version of this package that was in Debian prior to this removal
can still be found using http://snapshot.debian.org/.

Please note that the changes have been done on the master archive and
will not propagate to any mirrors until the next dinstall run at the
earliest.

This message was generated automatically; if you believe that there is
a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing
ftpmas...@ftp-master.debian.org.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Scott Kitterman (the ftpmaster behind the curtain)--- End Message ---

Bug#243011: marked as done (lilo-installer does not support non-chainloaded OSes such as linux and the hurd)

2020-04-02 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System 
Your message dated Fri, 03 Apr 2020 04:48:27 +
with message-id 
and subject line Bug#955507: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #243011,
regarding lilo-installer does not support non-chainloaded OSes such as linux 
and the hurd
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.)


-- 
243011: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=243011
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: debian-installer
Version: 20040407

An excellent addition to a great installer!
(Sorry for the long report, but I think you'll find it is worth reading it.)

Summary
===
- all bootable partitions were recognized :-)
- Win2k boots from GRUB :-)
- Woody does not boot from GRUB :-(
- Additional entries in current lilo.conf are not copied to GRUB :-?
- I (semi-accidentally) ran GRUB twice, which resulted in all extra
  partitions being shown twice in the menu ;-)
- some observations on potentially tricky situations

My current desktop on which I test d-i is a multi-boot machine in the extreme. 
So this is a bit of a stress test for a new piece of software.
I have included a partition list and an extract of my current LILO config at 
the bottom of this report for reference.
I have also attached the full new /boot/grub/menu.lst as created by d-i.

For the two d-i installations on /dev/hdb, I currently do the following:
- during d-i: install GRUB on the new root partition (/dev/hdb8 or 9)
- chainload GRUB from my lilo.conf on /dev/hda

Full report
===
I installed d-i to my test partition /dev/hdb9 (hd1,8) and also installed GRUB 
on this partition.
If I chainload GRUB on /dev/hdb9 from lilo, I get a nice menu with all 
bootable partitions listed. All OS'es can be booted except for my Woody 
system (I have not tested the win98 partition as it is for another machine).

Booting Woody fails with the following message.
  Booting 'Debian GNU/Linux (3.0) (on /dev/hda5)'
  root (hd0,0)
filesystem is ext2fs, partition type 0x83
  kernel /boot/vmlinuz root=/dev/hda5

  Error 15: file not found

I think it fails because it looks for /boot/vmlinuz on /dev/hda5 while it is 
on my boot partition, which is /dev/hda1.
Not sure how to fix this as I'm not really familiar with GRUB (yet). I'll try 
to look into this tomorrow.

I was very surprised that for /dev/hdb8 (hd1,7) (Unstable) the GRUB on that 
partition is chainloaded. From the entries in menu.lst, I would have expected 
Linux to be loaded directly (like it tries to do for Woody).

I have some additional entries in my current lilo.conf for backup kernel 
versions and for memtest. These were not included in the new GRUB menu. This 
means, if I had installed GRUB on /dev/hda, I would have lost these entries.
I am in two minds about this:
- you preferably should not loose existing things with a new installation
- adding all entries would clutter the new GRUB menu (but can of course
  always be manually deleted)
Note: for the existing GRUB on /dev/hdb8 (hd1,7) both existing entries _were_ 
added.

I ran the GRUB installation twice. This resulted in all additional entries 
being included twice in the new GRUB menu. Probably easy to fix by cleaning 
up before starting the probe for other OS.

Other observations
==
As you can see in my partition list, fdisk marks /dev/hda3 as the active 
partition. I don't understand what's happening here because lilo is installed 
on /dev/hda (master boot record) and I am certain it boots from that!
Lilo can't be installed on /dev/hda3 as the boot record of that partition 
contains the win2k bootrecord. So it looks like lilo works independent of the 
'active partition'.

I think a test should be run to see what happens if current lilo is on for 
example /dev/hda5 and you install GRUB to /dev/hda. Will a new boot use the 
old lilo or the new GRUB?
You might need to change the active partition during GRUB installation in such
situations (or something).

Conclusion
==
Kudos to joeyh!



Disk /dev/hda: 255 heads, 63 sectors, 2482 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 bytes

   Device Boot Start  End   Blocks  Id  System
/dev/hda1  1216033+ 83  Linux /boot
/dev/hda2513 2482 15824025   f  Win95 Ext'd (LBA)
/dev/hda3   *  3  512  4096575   b  Win95 FAT32   Win2k
/dev/hda5513 1022  4096543+ 83  Linux /
/dev/hda6   1704 1716   104391  82  Linux swap(swap)
/dev/hda7   1717 1971  2048256   b  Win95 FAT32   Win2k data
/dev/hda8   1972 2354  3076416   b  Win95 FAT32   Win2k data

Bug#269336: marked as done (Should install a working /etc/lilo.conf file even when LILO installation is cancelled by the user)

2020-04-02 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System 
Your message dated Fri, 03 Apr 2020 04:48:27 +
with message-id 
and subject line Bug#955507: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #269336,
regarding Should install a working /etc/lilo.conf file even when LILO 
installation is cancelled by the user
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.)


-- 
269336: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=269336
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: installation-reports

INSTALL REPORT

Debian-installer-version: 29.08.2004, 
http://cdimage.debian.org/pub/cdimage-testing/sarge_d-i/i386/rc1/
uname -a: Linux hexe 2.4.26-1-386 #1 Thu Jul 22 12:46:23 JST 2004 i686 GNU/Linux
Date: last attempt ended 30. Aug 01:04
Method: Netinstall from CD http://debian.tu-bs.de/debian/ no proxy
Machine: Via Epia M1-N Mainboard
Processor: Via Nehemiah C3 1 GHz
Memory: 500 MB
Root Device: IDE  /dev/hda
Root Size/partition table:
 cfdisk 2.11n

  Festplatte: /dev/hda
Größe: 60011642880 Bytes
  Köpfe: 255   Sektoren pro Spur: 63   Zylinder: 7296

NameFlags  Part. Typ  Dateisystemtyp   [Bezeichner]   Größe (MB)
 --
hda1BootPrimäre   Linux 1019,94 
hda2Primäre   Linux ext21019,94
hda5Logische  Linux ext2   [/]  5996,23
hda6Logische  Linux swap1019,94
hda7Logische  Linux ext22048,10
hda8Logische  Linux ext22048,10
hda9Logische  Linux ext28192,38
hda10   Logische  Linux ext28192,38
hda11   Logische  Linux ext2   30474,67

new system with sarge:
/dev/hda5 on /  type ext2
/dev/hda6 swap

old system with woody:
/dev/hda6 swap
/dev/hda2 on / type ext2 
/dev/hda7 on /usr type ext2 (rw)
/dev/hda8 on /var type ext2 (rw)
/dev/hda9 on /home type ext2 (rw)
/dev/hda10 on /opt type ext2 (rw)
/dev/hda11 on /bilder type ext2 (rw)
/dev/hda5 on /clara type ext2 (rw)

Output of lspci and lspci -n:
from woody:
jw@hexe:~$ lspci
00:00.0 Host bridge: VIA Technologies, Inc.: Unknown device 3123
00:01.0 PCI bridge: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT8633 [Apollo Pro266 AGP]
00:0d.0 FireWire (IEEE 1394): VIA Technologies, Inc. OHCI Compliant IEEE 1394 
Host Controller (rev 80)
00:10.0 USB Controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. UHCI USB (rev 80)
00:10.1 USB Controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. UHCI USB (rev 80)
00:10.2 USB Controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. UHCI USB (rev 80)
00:10.3 USB Controller: VIA Technologies, Inc.: Unknown device 3104 (rev 82)
00:11.0 ISA bridge: VIA Technologies, Inc.: Unknown device 3177
00:11.1 IDE interface: VIA Technologies, Inc. Bus Master IDE (rev 06)
00:11.5 Multimedia audio controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. AC97 Audio 
Controller (rev 50)
00:12.0 Ethernet controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. Ethernet Controller (rev 74)
01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: VIA Technologies, Inc.: Unknown device 3122 
(rev 03)
sarge:
jw@hexe:~$ lspci
:00:00.0 Host bridge: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT8623 [Apollo CLE266]
:00:01.0 PCI bridge: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT8633 [Apollo Pro266 AGP]
:00:0d.0 FireWire (IEEE 1394): VIA Technologies, Inc. IEEE 1394 Host 
Controller (rev 80)
:00:10.0 USB Controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT82x UHCI USB 1.1 
Controller (rev 80)
:00:10.1 USB Controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT82x UHCI USB 1.1 
Controller (rev 80)
:00:10.2 USB Controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT82x UHCI USB 1.1 
Controller (rev 80)
:00:10.3 USB Controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. USB 2.0 (rev 82)
:00:11.0 ISA bridge: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT8235 ISA Bridge
:00:11.1 IDE interface: VIA Technologies, Inc. 
VT82C586A/B/VT82C686/A/B/VT823x/A/C PIPC Bus Master IDE (rev 06)
:00:11.5 Multimedia audio controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. 
VT8233/A/8235/8237 AC97 Audio Controller (rev 50)
:00:12.0 Ethernet controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT6102 [Rhine-II] (rev 
74)
:01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT8623 [Apollo 
CLE266] integrated CastleRock graphics (rev 03)

woody:
lspci -n
00:00.0 Class 0600: 1106:3123
00:01.0 Class 0604: 1106:b091
00:0d.0 Class 0c00: 1106:3044 (rev 80

Re: [PATCH] various os-prober patches

2020-04-02 Thread Cyril Brulebois 
Hi debian-boot@,

Please find below a nice mail from Thierry, summarizing a number of
changes that would be great to see merged into os-prober.

If anyone wants to volunteer to coordinate merging those changes into
Debian, to fix all the bugs©®™ for us and our downstream, that would be
great!

Thierry, if nobody steps up in the upcoming weeks, you're welcome to
ping me back; I might try and allocate company time to it, but “when”
would be the big question…


Cheers,
-- 
Cyril Brulebois (k...@debian.org)
D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant


Thierry Vignaud  (2020-04-02):
> Hi
> There's quite some patches for os-prober that lurks in Mageia, Fedora &
> SUSE packages and it looks like some patches just remain in
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?repeatmerged=no&src=os-prober
> 
> So here's my attempt at getting some of them merged, which would reduce the
> burden on us distro packagers:
> (more chlog and/or comments may be find in them)
> 
> os-prober-SUSE.patch: : Fix spelling of SUSE a...@suse.de
> 
> os-prober-1.49-fix-grub2.cfg-parsing.patch: Fix several problems in parsing
> of grub.cfg by linux-boot-probes/mounted/40grub2 [bnc#796919]
> 
> 1. Look for /boot/grub2-efi/grub.cfg as well (openSUSE 12.2)
> 
> 2. It checked for literal "(on /dev/.*)" to filter out menu entries
> added by another os-prober on target system. But grub.cfg now includes
> TRANSLATED strings, so this check will fail if grub.cfg was created in
> non-English locale. Use menu entry ID to check whether entry was added
> by os-prober (it always starts with osprober-).
> 
> os-prober-probe-MD-devices.patch: Probe also unpartitioned Linux MD devices
> (bnc#811006)
> 
> os-prober-linux-secure-boot.patch: Detect linux secure boot entries too
> (bnc#810912)
> 
> 
> os-prober-btrfsfix.patch: btrfs support from Fedora (rediffed)
> 
> os-prober-EFI-openSUSEfy.patch: Small cosmetic changes to ensure UEFI
> scripts keep content
> after upstream merged (slightly outdated) version of them.
> - retain ELILO vendor prefix in case someone is really using it
> - comment in 05efi is obviously wrong
> 
> os-prober-accept-ESP-on-IMSM.patch: accept ESP on IMSM MD raid (bnc#818871)
> 
> os-prober-dont-load-all-fs-module-and-dont-test-mount.patch: don't modprobe
> all file system modules and don't test mount on unknown partition
> (bnc#851722)
> 
> os-prober-fix-btrfs-subvol-mounted-tests.patch: fix os-prober entries for
> distro on btrfs root-fs not created (bnc#846003)
> 
> os-prober-skip-part-on-multipath.patch: fix os-prober creates many
> unusuable entries on multipath disk (bnc#875327)
> 
> Improve-btrfs-handling-on-os-probing-for-grub2.patch: fix os-prober fails
> to detect other SLES12 installation (bsc#892364)
> 
> os-prober-btrfs-absolute-subvol.patch: fix os-prober mount error, no such
> file or directory (bsc#931955)
> the do_unmount has to be skipped for btrfs as it removes tmp mount point of
> which btrfs is making use (bsc#1024196)
> 
> os-prober-40grub-check-grub2.patch: also skip legacy grub if
> /boot/grub2/grub.cfg is present
> 
> os-prober-btrfs-snapshot-detection.patch: OpenSuSE patch: detect os on
> default subvolume in snapshot (bsc#954225)
> 
> os-prober-btrfs-always-detect-default.patch: os-prober update broke Linux
> detection (bsc#957018)
> 
> os-prober-linux-distro-avoid-expensive-ld-file-test.patch: y2base runs at
> 100% cpu busy from beginning in installation of files to completion
> (bsc#953987)
> 
> os-prober-linux-distro-parse-os-release.patch: Leap does not recognize
> Tumbleweed any more (bsc#997465)
> 
> Improve slow os-prober (rhbz#875356)
> (forward port of https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=694668)
> os-prober-factor-out-logger.patch
> os-prober-factored-logger-efi-fix.patch
> 
> os-prober-umount-fix.patch:  Fix separate /usr partitions for usrmove
> distros (bug #1044760)
> - Fix umount error when directory is temporarily busy (bug #903906)
> 
> os-prober-grepfix.patch: Fix parsing grub2's initrd/linux variations,
> rhbz#1108344
> 
> os-prober-gentoo-fix.patch: - Support a case where a kernel named vmlinuz/x
> is used under Gentoo, bug #1223237
> 
> os-prober-mounted-partitions-fix.patch: Fix a bug in recent btrfs patch
> when an extended partition is examined (H.J. Lu) (bug #906847)
> - Fix naming of /boot partitions according to their fstab entry (bug
> #893472)
> - Don't generate .btrfsfix files which will be included in final rpm
> - Fix wrong boot partition set by linux-boot-prober when / and /boot are
>   mounted (bug #906886)
> - Factor out 'logger', so that it is run once and logs are piped to it
> (John
>   Reiser) (bug #875356)
> 
> os-prober-bootpart-name-fix.patch: Fix parsing grub2's initrd/linux
> variations, rhbz #1108344
> 
> os-prober-no-dummy-mach-kernel.patch: Fix using grep for searching binary
> files, fixes #1172405.
> - Use shell string processing rather than 'basename' (#

Bug#955590: debian-installer: Include option to install wireless utilities even if wlan interface not detected

2020-04-02 Thread Jesse Rhodes 
Package: debian-installer
Severity: wishlist
Tags: d-i

Dear Maintainer,

Sometimes wifi interfaces require additional work after the install is 
completed before they can be used.
Not having packages such as 'iw' or 'wpa-supplicant' present on the system 
immediately after the install makes this much more difficult, sometimes 
requiring sneakernet with usb drives and packages.debian.org or similar. 
These packages are present in the installer, though, so it would be much better 
if they could be manually selected during the install process. 

Thanks,
sney

-- System Information:
Debian Release: bullseye/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386

Kernel: Linux 5.4.0-4-amd64 (SMP w/8 CPU cores)
Kernel taint flags: TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE, TAINT_OOT_MODULE, 
TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE
Locale: LANG=en_CA.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_CA.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), 
LANGUAGE=en_CA:en (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
LSM: AppArmor: enabled

Graphical installer on arm64 (netboot and cdrom)

2020-04-02 Thread Alper Nebi Yasak 
I posted a while ago about graphical installer on arm64, here's an 
update. The first two patches I've attached are Wookey's patches with 
two module changes (noted in the patch message). The third one is to 
enable graphical cdrom builds, which I tested with the d-i bullseye 
alpha2 arm64 xfce CD-1 image on both a QEMU virtual machine (via 
virt-manager) and my chromebook (rk3399-gru-kevin).


On the VM: I've set the firmware to UEFI, mounted the iso file as a CD, 
and used my patched vmlinuz/initrd files with "Direct kernel boot". The 
installation went fine except I needed to pass "console=tty0" in the 
command line arguments, but that's not a problem in these patches (an 
ACPI SPCR table results in Linux not registering tty0 as a console).


On the chromebook: I've written the iso to a partition (/dev/sda1) and 
used my patched (also with chromebook stuff) vmlinuz/initrd/dtb to boot. 
There, I had to manually specify '/dev/sda1' as the cdrom device in the 
cdrom-detect step. It worked for the base-installer step, but not for 
the apt-setup step, but the installation continued anyway with a network 
mirror and finished with success. I don't know if that apt-setup problem 
is considered a bug, I probably wasn't supposed to use a partition as a 
cdrom.


I think these patches will work fine on other hardware as well (but I 
don't have anything else to test on). Thanks in advance if anyone can 
have a look.
>From 171186b5b88903814ab6b0d4ea94b043d5ba1c73 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Wookey 
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 18:14:22 +
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] Add support for graphical installer to arm64

---
 build/config/arm64.cfg |  2 +-
 build/config/arm64/netboot-gtk.cfg | 24 
 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
 create mode 100644 build/config/arm64/netboot-gtk.cfg

diff --git a/build/config/arm64.cfg b/build/config/arm64.cfg
index 29f1db8b0..8ada8ba29 100644
--- a/build/config/arm64.cfg
+++ b/build/config/arm64.cfg
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-MEDIUM_SUPPORTED = cdrom netboot device-tree u-boot
+MEDIUM_SUPPORTED = cdrom netboot netboot-gtk device-tree u-boot
 
 KERNELMAJOR = 2.6
 # The version of the kernel to use.
diff --git a/build/config/arm64/netboot-gtk.cfg b/build/config/arm64/netboot-gtk.cfg
new file mode 100644
index 0..0f1d246d1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/build/config/arm64/netboot-gtk.cfg
@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+MEDIA_TYPE = netboot image
+
+NETBOOT_DIR_TARGETS = $(TEMP_INITRD) $(TEMP_KERNEL)
+
+TYPE = netboot/gtk
+
+TARGET = $(NETBOOT_DIR) $(NETBOOT_TAR) $(MINIISO)
+EXTRANAME = netboot/gtk/
+
+BOOT_SCREEN_DIR = $(NETBOOT_PATH)/boot-screens/
+
+MANIFEST-NETBOOT_DIR = "PXE boot directory for tftp server (graphical installer)"
+MANIFEST-NETBOOT_TAR = "tarball of PXE boot directory (graphical installer)"
+MANIFEST-MINIISO = "not so tiny CD image that boots the graphical netboot installer"
+
+IS_PURE_GTK = 1
+
+KEEP_GI_LANGS = 1
+
+VIDEO_MODE=$(VIDEO_MODE_GTK)
+
+# All images that include cdebconf should include symbols needed by these
+# plugins.
+EXTRAUDEBS += cdebconf-gtk-entropy
-- 
2.26.0

>From 1bbfb902cb984d83b2bb1ac40524a526ee13cdcd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Wookey 
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2019 03:13:40 +
Subject: [PATCH 2/3] Add missing modules (usb, fat, virtio) to arm64 netboot
 build and xorg modules to netbook-gtk

Alper Nebi Yasak:
- added event-modules to arm64 netboot-gtk
- commented-out serial-modules from arm64 netboot
Signed-off-by: Alper Nebi Yasak 
---
 build/pkg-lists/netboot/arm64.cfg | 15 ++-
 build/pkg-lists/netboot/gtk/arm64.cfg | 11 +++
 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
 create mode 100644 build/pkg-lists/netboot/gtk/arm64.cfg

diff --git a/build/pkg-lists/netboot/arm64.cfg b/build/pkg-lists/netboot/arm64.cfg
index d5635daa9..01fe2b0a5 100644
--- a/build/pkg-lists/netboot/arm64.cfg
+++ b/build/pkg-lists/netboot/arm64.cfg
@@ -11,9 +11,22 @@ nic-modules-${kernel:Version}
 nic-usb-modules-${kernel:Version}
 nic-wireless-modules-${kernel:Version}
 virtio-modules-${kernel:Version} ?
+usb-modules-${kernel:Version}
 
 fb-modules-${kernel:Version} ?
 input-modules-${kernel:Version} ?
 
-#for all targets
+# In case they need to load a driver image.
+mountmedia
+media-retriever
+fat-modules-${kernel:Version}
+usb-storage-modules-${kernel:Version}
+mmc-modules-${kernel:Version} ?
+
+# brltty
+brltty-udeb
+# serial-modules-${kernel:Version} ?
+usb-serial-modules-${kernel:Version} ?
+uinput-modules-${kernel:Version} ?
 
+#for all targets
diff --git a/build/pkg-lists/netboot/gtk/arm64.cfg b/build/pkg-lists/netboot/gtk/arm64.cfg
new file mode 100644
index 0..bda77cdab
--- /dev/null
+++ b/build/pkg-lists/netboot/gtk/arm64.cfg
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+#include "gtk-linux"
+
+#mouse-modules-${kernel:Version}
+event-modules-${kernel:Version}
+xserver-xorg-input-evdev-udeb
+xserver-xorg-video-fbdev-udeb
+
+#speakup-modules-${kernel:Version}
+#sound-modules-${kernel:Version}
+#console-setup-linux-fonts-udeb
+#espeakup-udeb

Re: Remove of lilo-installer

2020-04-02 Thread Holger Wansing 
Hi,

John Paul Adrian Glaubitz  wrote:
> Hi Thorsten!
> 
> On 4/2/20 10:30 AM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> > John Paul Adrian Glaubitz dixit:
> > 
> >> No idea what the stance on i386 is. But I think Thorsten is a LILO user.
> > 
> > No, I haven’t been using LILO for a long time either.
> 
> Okay, bad memory on my side then :).
> 
> > I _did_ use it about a decade ago, when I got back to Debian
> > after using only BSD for a while, but even before that, I
> > used loadlin more, and discovered grub during the BSD-only
> > time (considering it could do PXE).
> 
> OK.
> 
> > Why the removal? Does it not work any more for some reason?
> 
> The LILO package itself isn't being removed.

lilo's removal seems on the way.
>From lilo's changelog:

lilo (1:24.2-5) unstable; urgency=medium

  * Add file debian/NEWS to point out that lilo package is deprecated
and its install package will vanish as by the end of year 2020.
Move to e.g. grub2 is recommended.
  * debian/control:
- Bump Standards Version to 4.4.1 (no changes).
  * debian/patches:
- 10: add new patch, fix manpage lilo.conf.5. Closes: #919741

 -- Joachim Wiedorn   Tue, 10 Dec 2019 23:41:00 +0100



NEWS says:

lilo (1:24.2-5) unstable; urgency=medium

 Lilo is at the end of development for some years. Finally the
 Debian package of lilo will be marked as deprecated and will 
 vanish as install package by the end of year 2020. Lilo will 
 removed well before the transition freeze of bullseye.

 I recommend to move to another bootloader e.g. grub2 in the
 next months.


> > Or is this just about the d-i integration?
> 
> Yeah, it's just about removing src:lilo-installer. I assume everyone keen
> enough these days to use LILO can install it manually anyways.

see above


Holger


-- 
Holger Wansing 
PGP-Fingerprint: 496A C6E8 1442 4B34 8508  3529 59F1 87CA 156E B076

Re: Remove of lilo-installer

2020-04-02 Thread John Paul Adrian Glaubitz 
Hi Thorsten!

On 4/2/20 10:30 AM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> John Paul Adrian Glaubitz dixit:
> 
>> No idea what the stance on i386 is. But I think Thorsten is a LILO user.
> 
> No, I haven’t been using LILO for a long time either.

Okay, bad memory on my side then :).

> I _did_ use it about a decade ago, when I got back to Debian
> after using only BSD for a while, but even before that, I
> used loadlin more, and discovered grub during the BSD-only
> time (considering it could do PXE).

OK.

> Why the removal? Does it not work any more for some reason?

The LILO package itself isn't being removed.

> Or is this just about the d-i integration?

Yeah, it's just about removing src:lilo-installer. I assume everyone keen
enough these days to use LILO can install it manually anyways.

I have also enabled GRUB on ia64, powerpc, ppc64 and sparc64 as well,
so we made good progress unifying bootloaders.

Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

Re: Remove of lilo-installer

2020-04-02 Thread Thorsten Glaser 
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz dixit:

>No idea what the stance on i386 is. But I think Thorsten is a LILO user.

No, I haven’t been using LILO for a long time either.
I _did_ use it about a decade ago, when I got back to Debian
after using only BSD for a while, but even before that, I
used loadlin more, and discovered grub during the BSD-only
time (considering it could do PXE).

Why the removal? Does it not work any more for some reason?
Or is this just about the d-i integration?

bye,
//mirabilos
-- 
Sometimes they [people] care too much: pretty printers [and syntax highligh-
ting, d.A.] mechanically produce pretty output that accentuates irrelevant
detail in the program, which is as sensible as putting all the prepositions
in English text in bold font.   -- Rob Pike in "Notes on Programming in C"