Re: Switching default install entry to graphical installer?
[Cyril Brulebois] > IIRC/AFAICT console-setup is used in d-i (udeb), and the questions get > asked again when keyboard-configuration (deb) [or maybe console-setup > (deb)?] is configured. In a perfect world, files/settings should be > propagated to the target environment, and used to preseed the > templates, and skip the question if appropriate. There seem to be code to do this in some udeb, which fail and report several error: lines in /var/log/syslog. So there is a bug somewhere making this fail. Is there anyone working on fixing this? Happy hacking, -- Petter Reinholdtsen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2fleie79c3b@login2.uio.no
Re: Switching default install entry to graphical installer?
Petter Reinholdtsen (09/08/2010): > I suspect it is related to the fact that the g-i images use a > different udeb to set up the console than the non-g-i images, but do > not really know. > > Is this a known problem? Mentioned in Feb/Mar 2010, at least. IIRC/AFAICT console-setup is used in d-i (udeb), and the questions get asked again when keyboard-configuration (deb) [or maybe console-setup (deb)?] is configured. In a perfect world, files/settings should be propagated to the target environment, and used to preseed the templates, and skip the question if appropriate. But that's only based on my recollection / current grasp of the situation. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Switching default install entry to graphical installer?
[Daniel Baumann] > i've been testing the graphical installer quite intensively during > the last days and it works very well. given that these days most of > the crappy hardware that used to not work with g-i has either > vanished completely, or, represents a supposedly so insignificant > share of the target audience, that i think we should make g-i the > default entry on the regular d-i images, as it's much nicer for the > general audience and supports more languages. While I agree that this would be a nice thing to do, there is a misfeature somewhere in g-i that should be addressed first. When installing with the graphical installer, heaps of error messages show up in the installation log from base-installer.d/20console-setup which fai to find the keyboard-configuration debconf templates. The installer also ask for keyboard layout twice, once early in the process, and once after tasksel is done downloading packages. I suspect these are related, but have not had time to investigate the issue. I suspect it is related to the fact that the g-i images use a different udeb to set up the console than the non-g-i images, but do not really know. Is this a known problem? Happy hacking, -- Petter Reinholdtsen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2flk4nza1qh@login2.uio.no
Re: Switching default install entry to graphical installer?
On 08/04/2010 07:15 AM, Sergey Korobitsin wrote: > a question: is there any way to build the actual d-i with > gui-installer and the live-installer support included? lh config --debian-installer live --debian-installer-gui true && lh build -- Address:Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist Email: daniel.baum...@panthera-systems.net Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c58fe3f.7010...@debian.org
Re: Switching default install entry to graphical installer?
Daniel Baumann ☫ → To Debian Install System Team @ Tue, Aug 03, 2010 23:21 +0200 > Hi, > > i've been testing the graphical installer quite intensively during the > last days and it works very well. given that these days most of the > crappy hardware that used to not work with g-i has either vanished > completely, or, represents a supposedly so insignificant share of the > target audience, that i think we should make g-i the default entry on > the regular d-i images, as it's much nicer for the general audience and > supports more languages. Yes, I think so too, graphical installer is more user-friendly and the amount of hardware not supporting it is going to be smaller and smaller. BTW, a question: is there any way to build the actual d-i with gui-installer and the live-installer support included? -- Bright regards, Sergey Korobitsin | http://the-brights.net/ -- Arta Software, http://arta.kz/ | illuminating and elevating xmpp:underta...@jabber.arta.kz | the naturalistic worldview -- Условно-бесплатная программа — это такая программа, которую ставишь бесплатно, а потом тебе за неё дают условно… -- aceler в http://lj.rossia.org/users/k001/659660.html?thread=4968140#t4968140 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100804051522.ga30...@undertaker.arta.local
Re: Switching default install entry to graphical installer?
Hi, Daniel Baumann wrote: > target audience, that i think we should make g-i the default entry on > the regular d-i images, as it's much nicer for the general audience and > supports more languages. That would require some changings to the d-i manual, too, as there the g-i is only described in an appendix. Holger -- = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Created with Sylpheed 2.5.0 under DEBIAN GNU/LINUX 5.0.0 - L e n n y Registered LinuxUser #311290 - http://counter.li.org/ = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100803234504.ca4b5342.li...@wansing-online.de
Re: Switching default install entry to graphical installer?
Quoting Daniel Baumann (dan...@debian.org): > Hi, > > i've been testing the graphical installer quite intensively during the > last days and it works very well. given that these days most of the > crappy hardware that used to not work with g-i has either vanished > completely, or, represents a supposedly so insignificant share of the > target audience, that i think we should make g-i the default entry on > the regular d-i images, as it's much nicer for the general audience and > supports more languages. You get my +1 vote for it. This is indeed roughly what we agreed upon when lenny was released with g-i. Of course, in the meantime, g-i changed quite significantly. As I was saying this morning in the X talk, sometimes, taking risks is worth it. Still, I'd suggest discussing this also in -devel. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Switching default install entry to graphical installer?
Hi, i've been testing the graphical installer quite intensively during the last days and it works very well. given that these days most of the crappy hardware that used to not work with g-i has either vanished completely, or, represents a supposedly so insignificant share of the target audience, that i think we should make g-i the default entry on the regular d-i images, as it's much nicer for the general audience and supports more languages. Regards, Daniel -- Address:Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist Email: daniel.baum...@panthera-systems.net Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c58884a.1040...@debian.org
