Re: Time for a cdebconf upload ?
Quoting Regis Boudin (re...@boudin.name): Hi folks, I noticed that today, gcc 4.6.1 was uploaded, which means the current cdebconf 0.155 will FTBFS. Is it time to release and upload 0.156 to fix this issue ? I believe the breaking of tasksel on Hurd should be fixed as well, now. I also have bunch of patches I would like to try and push after this release, so I'm quite keen on getting this release out. :) I think it's OK to upload. Mor euploads means more testing..:-) You're DD, Régis, right, so you can upload? Or am I mistaken? signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Time for a cdebconf upload ?
On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 06:56 +0200, Christian PERRIER wrote: Quoting Regis Boudin (re...@boudin.name): Hi folks, I noticed that today, gcc 4.6.1 was uploaded, which means the current cdebconf 0.155 will FTBFS. Is it time to release and upload 0.156 to fix this issue ? I believe the breaking of tasksel on Hurd should be fixed as well, now. I also have bunch of patches I would like to try and push after this release, so I'm quite keen on getting this release out. :) I think it's OK to upload. Mor euploads means more testing..:-) You're DD, Régis, right, so you can upload? Or am I mistaken? Upload done, then. I'll start pushing more patches in a bit. -- 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/1309293896.6101.0.camel@x200s
Time for a cdebconf upload ?
Hi folks, I noticed that today, doko uploaded gcc 4.6.1, which means the current cdebconf 0.155 will FTBFS. Is it time to release and upload 0.156 which fixes this issue ? I believe the breaking of tasksel on hurd should now be fixed as well. I also have bunch of patches I would like to try and push after this release, so I quite keen on it. Regis -- 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/1309201733.8499.39.camel@x200s
Re: Time for a cdebconf upload ?
Regis Boudin, le Mon 27 Jun 2011 20:08:47 +0100, a écrit : I believe the breaking of tasksel on hurd should now be fixed as well. Which breaking of tasksel on hurd? Samuel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110627193150.gf4...@const.famille.thibault.fr
Time for a cdebconf upload ?
Hi folks, I noticed that today, gcc 4.6.1 was uploaded, which means the current cdebconf 0.155 will FTBFS. Is it time to release and upload 0.156 to fix this issue ? I believe the breaking of tasksel on Hurd should be fixed as well, now. I also have bunch of patches I would like to try and push after this release, so I'm quite keen on getting this release out. :) Regis -- 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/1309202298.12721.3.camel@x200s
Re: Re: Time for a cdebconf upload ?
Hi Samuel, Which breaking of tasksel on hurd? Sorry, forgot to mention, it's #628084, which you reported last month. Regis -- 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/1309203869.12721.5.camel@x200s
Re: Re: Time for a cdebconf upload ?
Regis Boudin, le Mon 27 Jun 2011 20:44:21 +0100, a écrit : Which breaking of tasksel on hurd? Sorry, forgot to mention, it's #628084, which you reported last month. Ah, I don't believe the issue is only on the hurd, as there is nothing hurd-specific in the issue. Samuel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110627201442.gl4...@const.famille.thibault.fr
Re: Re: Time for a cdebconf upload ?
On Mon, 2011-06-27 at 22:14 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: Regis Boudin, le Mon 27 Jun 2011 20:44:21 +0100, a écrit : Which breaking of tasksel on hurd? Sorry, forgot to mention, it's #628084, which you reported last month. Ah, I don't believe the issue is only on the hurd, as there is nothing hurd-specific in the issue. Don't think there is anything hurd-specific either, but you're the one who spotted it, so you're probably the best placed to confirm if the issue is gone. Have you tried other git snapshots that would confirm it since last month ? Regis -- 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/1309206512.12721.11.camel@x200s
Re: Re: Time for a cdebconf upload ?
Regis Boudin, le Mon 27 Jun 2011 21:28:26 +0100, a écrit : On Mon, 2011-06-27 at 22:14 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: Regis Boudin, le Mon 27 Jun 2011 20:44:21 +0100, a écrit : Which breaking of tasksel on hurd? Sorry, forgot to mention, it's #628084, which you reported last month. Ah, I don't believe the issue is only on the hurd, as there is nothing hurd-specific in the issue. Don't think there is anything hurd-specific either, but you're the one who spotted it, so you're probably the best placed to confirm if the issue is gone. Have you tried other git snapshots that would confirm it since last month ? I didn't get to take any time to try it. Samuel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110627203046.go4...@const.famille.thibault.fr
Re: Re: Time for a cdebconf upload ?
On Mon, 2011-06-27 at 22:30 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: Regis Boudin, le Mon 27 Jun 2011 21:28:26 +0100, a écrit : On Mon, 2011-06-27 at 22:14 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: Regis Boudin, le Mon 27 Jun 2011 20:44:21 +0100, a écrit : Which breaking of tasksel on hurd? Sorry, forgot to mention, it's #628084, which you reported last month. Ah, I don't believe the issue is only on the hurd, as there is nothing hurd-specific in the issue. Don't think there is anything hurd-specific either, but you're the one who spotted it, so you're probably the best placed to confirm if the issue is gone. Have you tried other git snapshots that would confirm it since last month ? I didn't get to take any time to try it. Ok, thanks. I'll try to check that my patch actually fixed the problem you had, but wanted to check if you had done it before. Regis -- 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/1309207050.12721.13.camel@x200s
Re: Re: Time for a cdebconf upload ?
On Mon, 2011-06-27 at 21:37 +0100, Regis Boudin wrote: On Mon, 2011-06-27 at 22:30 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: Regis Boudin, le Mon 27 Jun 2011 21:28:26 +0100, a écrit : On Mon, 2011-06-27 at 22:14 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: Regis Boudin, le Mon 27 Jun 2011 20:44:21 +0100, a écrit : Which breaking of tasksel on hurd? Sorry, forgot to mention, it's #628084, which you reported last month. Ah, I don't believe the issue is only on the hurd, as there is nothing hurd-specific in the issue. Don't think there is anything hurd-specific either, but you're the one who spotted it, so you're probably the best placed to confirm if the issue is gone. Have you tried other git snapshots that would confirm it since last month ? I didn't get to take any time to try it. Ok, thanks. I'll try to check that my patch actually fixed the problem you had, but wanted to check if you had done it before. So, I made some tests with tasksel and the current cdebconf from git, and it seems to work fine. Any more thorough tests would be welcome if someone has some. Regis -- 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/1309212017.12721.18.camel@x200s
Re: Re: Time for a cdebconf upload ?
Regis Boudin, le Mon 27 Jun 2011 21:37:25 +0100, a écrit : On Mon, 2011-06-27 at 22:30 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: Regis Boudin, le Mon 27 Jun 2011 21:28:26 +0100, a écrit : On Mon, 2011-06-27 at 22:14 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: Regis Boudin, le Mon 27 Jun 2011 20:44:21 +0100, a écrit : Which breaking of tasksel on hurd? Sorry, forgot to mention, it's #628084, which you reported last month. Ah, I don't believe the issue is only on the hurd, as there is nothing hurd-specific in the issue. Don't think there is anything hurd-specific either, but you're the one who spotted it, so you're probably the best placed to confirm if the issue is gone. Have you tried other git snapshots that would confirm it since last month ? I didn't get to take any time to try it. Ok, thanks. I'll try to check that my patch actually fixed the problem you had, but wanted to check if you had done it before. I've taken the time, it seems to work properly now. Samuel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110627225027.gx4...@const.famille.thibault.fr
Re: cdebconf upload?
On Friday 04 April 2008, Frans Pop wrote: On Friday 04 April 2008, Christian Perrier wrote: Is cdebconf now ready for upload? I would like to activate a new language for D-I (Marathi, which just reached 100% to all sublevels) but that needs an upload of localechooser which in turn depends on the new cdebconf changes. Please hold a bit. I just noticed something regarding the new version of cdebconf: [...] These are all relatively big size increases. I'm not saying it is definitely a problem, but IMO it should be looked into before uploading. Turns out this is some weirdness in the sizes that dpkg-gencontrol generates. If I unpack the current unstable version and then compare, the sizes are similar. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
cdebconf upload?
Is cdebconf now ready for upload? I would like to activate a new language for D-I (Marathi, which just reached 100% to all sublevels) but that needs an upload of localechooser which in turn depends on the new cdebconf changes. -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: cdebconf upload?
Christian Perrier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is cdebconf now ready for upload? I would like to activate a new language for D-I (Marathi, which just reached 100% to all sublevels) but that needs an upload of localechooser which in turn depends on the new cdebconf changes. I've just taken a look at current cdebconf svn code and it looks sane. I'd prefer to get an ack by Jeremy before we do it. Jeremy? -- O T A V I OS A L V A D O R - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] UIN: 5906116 GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855 Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br - Microsoft sells you Windows ... Linux gives you the whole house. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: cdebconf upload?
On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 09:52:37AM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: Christian Perrier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is cdebconf now ready for upload? I would like to activate a new language for D-I (Marathi, which just reached 100% to all sublevels) but that needs an upload of localechooser which in turn depends on the new cdebconf changes. I've just taken a look at current cdebconf svn code and it looks sane. I'd prefer to get an ack by Jeremy before we do it. Jeremy? If other changes must come, they will be commited later. Please upload! :) IIRC, I might have some minor changes pending in my cdebconf-gtk-entropy and partman-align branches, but the former is lacking works on the templates and the later is too invasive for beta 2 and probably needs more work as well. Cheers, -- Jérémy Bobbio.''`. [EMAIL PROTECTED]: :Ⓐ : # apt-get install anarchism `. `'` `- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: cdebconf upload?
Jérémy Bobbio [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 09:52:37AM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: Christian Perrier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is cdebconf now ready for upload? I would like to activate a new language for D-I (Marathi, which just reached 100% to all sublevels) but that needs an upload of localechooser which in turn depends on the new cdebconf changes. I've just taken a look at current cdebconf svn code and it looks sane. I'd prefer to get an ack by Jeremy before we do it. Jeremy? If other changes must come, they will be commited later. Please upload! :) IIRC, I might have some minor changes pending in my cdebconf-gtk-entropy and partman-align branches, but the former is lacking works on the templates and the later is too invasive for beta 2 and probably needs more work as well. Great. Christian, go ahead :-) -- O T A V I OS A L V A D O R - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] UIN: 5906116 GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855 Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br - Microsoft sells you Windows ... Linux gives you the whole house.
Re: cdebconf upload?
On Friday 04 April 2008, Christian Perrier wrote:
Is cdebconf now ready for upload?
I would like to activate a new language for D-I (Marathi, which just
reached 100% to all sublevels) but that needs an upload of
localechooser which in turn depends on the new cdebconf changes.
Please hold a bit. I just noticed something regarding the new version of
cdebconf:
DebDiff for cdebconf_0.128_i386.deb and cdebconf_0.129_i386.deb:
Installed-Size: [-348-] {+436+}
DebDiff for libdebconfclient0_0.128_i386.deb and
libdebconfclient0_0.129_i386.deb:
Installed-Size: [-56-] {+84+}
DebDiff for libdebconfclient0-dev_0.128_i386.deb and
libdebconfclient0-dev_0.129_i386.deb:
Installed-Size: [-76-] {+112+}
DebDiff for cdebconf-gtk-udeb_0.128_i386.udeb and
cdebconf-gtk-udeb_0.129_i386.udeb:
Installed-Size: [-60-] {+88+}
DebDiff for cdebconf-newt-udeb_0.128_i386.udeb and
cdebconf-newt-udeb_0.129_i386.udeb:
Installed-Size: [-40-] {+64+}
DebDiff for cdebconf-priority_0.128_all.udeb and
cdebconf-priority_0.129_all.udeb:
Installed-Size: [-8-] {+16+}
DebDiff for cdebconf-text-udeb_0.128_i386.udeb and
cdebconf-text-udeb_0.129_i386.udeb:
Installed-Size: [-52-] {+76+}
DebDiff for cdebconf-udeb_0.128_i386.udeb and cdebconf-udeb_0.129_i386.udeb:
Installed-Size: [-192-] {+252+}
DebDiff for libdebconfclient0-udeb_0.128_i386.udeb and
libdebconfclient0-udeb_0.129_i386.udeb:
Installed-Size: [-8-] {+24+}
These are all relatively big size increases. I'm not saying it is definitely
a problem, but IMO it should be looked into before uploading. Jérémy?
Cheers,
FJP
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: cdebconf upload?
On Friday 04 April 2008, Christian Perrier wrote: I would like to activate a new language for D-I (Marathi, which just reached 100% to all sublevels) but that needs an upload of localechooser which in turn depends on the new cdebconf changes. It also needs an upload of rootskel. Joey: are your floppy related changes ready for upload? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: cdebconf upload?
Frans Pop wrote: It also needs an upload of rootskel. Joey: are your floppy related changes ready for upload? Yes. BTW, rootskel is building a binary which dynamlically links to klibc, which means it needs to be kept in sync with klibc too.. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: cdebconf upload?
On Friday 04 April 2008, Joey Hess wrote: Frans Pop wrote: It also needs an upload of rootskel. Joey: are your floppy related changes ready for upload? Yes. OK. I'll upload then. BTW, rootskel is building a binary which dynamlically links to klibc, which means it needs to be kept in sync with klibc too.. For testing migration you mean? Then yes, though as it will not break existing D-I releases it's not a huge issue IMO. And I doubt there are very many people building floppy images from testing. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: cdebconf upload
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 07:59:12AM +0800, John Summerfield wrote: On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Erik Andersen wrote: On Mon Mar 10, 2003 at 11:00:32PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: - switch to a smaller libc, such as uclibc The only downside to this is that I currently do not support all the architectures that are supported by Debian. Adding support for a new arch to uClibc is really not very hard, and most of the needed bits can be directly swiped from glibc, but it does take someone that is familiar with the architecture and willing to put in a bit of time. Debian arches not currently supported by uClibc: hppa, hurd, ia64, s390 Working but need some additional polish and ldso support: alpha, sparc, m68k Fully supported: arm, i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, sh Does d-i need a trim libc for all these architectures? For S/390, for example, if you can get a bootable kernel/initrd in place, you can get as bulky an installer as you could wish too. Likewise hppa and ia64 don't have a 1.4MB floppy limitation. Some hppa boxes have 1.4MB floppies, but we don't have kernel driver, and have managed ok so far with CD and network booting. Richard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: cdebconf upload
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Chris Tillman wrote: On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 12:54:47PM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: [Martin Sjögren] I want to make a cdebconf upload to fix the problem of bogl being included in cdebconf-udeb. Yes, please do. The new cdebconf packages breaks my d-i build because the floppies are full. The floppies-are-full problem was a major PITA in boot-floppies, and is starting to come up quite often already for d-i. Would it be worthwhile to standardize on 1 kernel floppy, 1 root floppy, with strictly minimal stuff on the root system just to be able to access floppies/CDs and start the installer, and then put off any remaining floppy involvement until after boot is complete - to load any other needed modules for specific cases as needed. Until recently, RHL has installed off one floppy, for most users. Up to and including RH 7.3, I could boot a floppy (a standard floppy with any luck), and that floppy would load the kernel initrd, identify the NIC load the driver, find the network and install. At the syslinux prompt, one would enter linux ks=url If at all possible, Debian likewise whould install from a single floppy. A single-floppy install can be automated much better than one that requires two. If the installer absolutely cannot be run from a 1.4 Mbyte floppy, then consider a one-floppy boot that will install from a network. (I am assuming a 2.8 Mbyte floppy is fine). The one-floppy boot that can install from a network might use etherboot, grub or similar to get the kernel/init from a LAN. Not especially useful (maybe) for the average punter, but wonderful for mass installs. -- Cheers John Summerfield Please, no off-list mail. It won't be read, it will be handled as spam. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: cdebconf upload
Chris Tillman wrote: Would it be worthwhile to standardize on 1 kernel floppy, 1 root floppy, with strictly minimal stuff on the root system just to be able to access floppies/CDs and start the installer, and then put off any remaining floppy involvement until after boot is complete - to load any other needed modules for specific cases as needed. Do note that there are some machines (certain USB floppy drives in my experience) where the kernel is not able to read a root filesystem off a second floppy[1], but a root on the same floppy works since the loader uses the BIOS to read the initrd. Even on architectures where the kernel and root fits on 1 floppy, I think it would be worthwhile code-wise to standardize on 2. How many people are actually going to burn floppies? And 2 is not much harder than 1. That way, our code can be modular, our instructions can be consistent, etc. Additional floppies or a CD would also be required for additional language support beyond choosing the language. d-i's modular code is the only reason we have any hope of fitting it on one floppy at all. I don't see how two floppies improves modularity. Instructions that leave a set of systems uninstallable are probably worse than mildly complicated ones, especially if the install manual for d-i is generated on a per-arch basis, so the number of floppies to burn can be substituted in at build time. Two floppies are really much harder to manage than one[2], for the user. I'm not so attached to a single floppy install that I'd advocate making the installer worse in general for it, but there seem to be plenty of avenues left if the floppy is almost full: - trim fat (stuff that has wandered into the image and need not be there, stuff not built with -Os, stuff that needs a redesign anyway) - switch to a smaller libc, such as uclibc - find a better filesystem/compression for the initrd - change the build system to produce two or three specialized floppy images (for install over network only, over cd only, with floppies only) with different mixes of udebs on them I think that the one floppy size constraint has helped keep d-i small and light, and I have not seen undue stressing about size constraints on this list. When it does come up, as in the first mail on this thread it is someone noticing some breakage in the system, like libc reduction not working right, or cdebconf.udeb being built with an extra frontend that really needs to be in its own udeb. The one floppy constraint has led to some IMHO good design choices throughout d-i, including: - udebs - use of frontend and backend modules for cdebconf If we didn't have a size constriant, this project could easily look a lot more like PGI. -- see shy jo [1] For exmple, my picturebook (RIP) had a usb floppy with no kernel driver. Even if it had a driver, it would be interesting to make the kernel load a filesystem from a USB floppy on boot, without hotplug and so on being available. [2] Much as the boot-floppies 6 floppy set used to be a ton harder to deal with than are the 1 or 2 peices of install media most people install with today. And not just 6x as hard either.. pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: cdebconf upload
On Mon Mar 10, 2003 at 11:00:32PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: - switch to a smaller libc, such as uclibc The only downside to this is that I currently do not support all the architectures that are supported by Debian. Adding support for a new arch to uClibc is really not very hard, and most of the needed bits can be directly swiped from glibc, but it does take someone that is familiar with the architecture and willing to put in a bit of time. Debian arches not currently supported by uClibc: hppa, hurd, ia64, s390 Working but need some additional polish and ldso support: alpha, sparc, m68k Fully supported: arm, i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, sh -Erik -- Erik B. Andersen http://codepoet-consulting.com/ --This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons-- pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: cdebconf upload
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Erik Andersen wrote: On Mon Mar 10, 2003 at 11:00:32PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: - switch to a smaller libc, such as uclibc The only downside to this is that I currently do not support all the architectures that are supported by Debian. Adding support for a new arch to uClibc is really not very hard, and most of the needed bits can be directly swiped from glibc, but it does take someone that is familiar with the architecture and willing to put in a bit of time. Debian arches not currently supported by uClibc: hppa, hurd, ia64, s390 Working but need some additional polish and ldso support: alpha, sparc, m68k Fully supported: arm, i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, sh Does d-i need a trim libc for all these architectures? For S/390, for example, if you can get a bootable kernel/initrd in place, you can get as bulky an installer as you could wish too. -- Cheers John Summerfield Please, no off-list mail. It won't be read, it will be handled as spam. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: cdebconf upload
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 12:54:47PM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: [Martin Sjögren] I want to make a cdebconf upload to fix the problem of bogl being included in cdebconf-udeb. Yes, please do. The new cdebconf packages breaks my d-i build because the floppies are full. The floppies-are-full problem was a major PITA in boot-floppies, and is starting to come up quite often already for d-i. Would it be worthwhile to standardize on 1 kernel floppy, 1 root floppy, with strictly minimal stuff on the root system just to be able to access floppies/CDs and start the installer, and then put off any remaining floppy involvement until after boot is complete - to load any other needed modules for specific cases as needed. Even on architectures where the kernel and root fits on 1 floppy, I think it would be worthwhile code-wise to standardize on 2. How many people are actually going to burn floppies? And 2 is not much harder than 1. That way, our code can be modular, our instructions can be consistent, etc. Additional floppies or a CD would also be required for additional language support beyond choosing the language. Another point is that most people will choose the graphical installer when it's available, which will need to load stuff from a CD even if a floppy is used to boot. We should spend as little time as possible worrying about floppies. -- The way the Romans made sure their bridges worked is what we should do with software engineers. They put the designer under the bridge, and then they marched over it. -- Lawrence Bernstein, Discover, Feb 2003 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: cdebconf upload
[Chris Tillman] Would it be worthwhile to standardize on 1 kernel floppy, 1 root floppy, with strictly minimal stuff on the root system just to be able to access floppies/CDs and start the installer, and then put off any remaining floppy involvement until after boot is complete - to load any other needed modules for specific cases as needed. I find it very good to be able to ask users with boot problems using the CD, to generate one (and only one) floppy when booting from CD. No confusion about which floppy to use first, and it is impossible to loose part of the installation set. Either to got the floppy, or you don't. I think we should try to use one floppy. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cdebconf upload
Hello I want to make a cdebconf upload to fix the problem of bogl being included in cdebconf-udeb. However, Alastair has added a gtk udeb (or tried to anyway, it doesn't work: dpkg-gencontrol: error: package cdebconf-gtk-udeb not in control info). Should I back these changes out to avoid having cdebconf go NEW on me again? /M signature.asc Description: Detta =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E4r?= en digitalt signeradmeddelandedel
Re: cdebconf upload
On Sun, 2003-03-09 at 19:47, Martin Sjgren wrote: Hello I want to make a cdebconf upload to fix the problem of bogl being included in cdebconf-udeb. However, Alastair has added a gtk udeb (or tried to anyway, it doesn't work: dpkg-gencontrol: error: package cdebconf-gtk-udeb not in control info). Should I back these changes out to avoid having cdebconf go NEW on me again? Apologies; I have a collection of uncomitted changes in my sources, and I forgot to upload the control file change. Committed. Alastair R /M -- Alastair McKinstry [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG Key fingerprint = 9E64 E714 8E08 81F9 F3DC 1020 FA8E 3790 9051 38F4 He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: cdebconf upload
Tollef Fog Heen wrote: | i'm alive but am very swamped at the moment. ugh, ok. | you need to coordinate with joey hess before you upload the new | cdebconf. we need debconf to move to the new debconf-api dependency | as well. uhm, can't just cdebconf provide it for now and debconf provide it at next upload? Or what kind of coordination are you asking for? I've been on vacation, but if Randolph has the API changes ready, I can make sure debconf meets the api and add the provide to debconf. This should probably be discussed on some other list, -policy? -- see shy jo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: cdebconf upload
* Randolph Chung | In reference to a message from Tollef Fog Heen, dated Aug 14: | | unless somebody has some big objections, I'll upload cdebconf 0.21 | tomorrow or so. | | tausq, it would be nice if you showed some life signs. :) | | i'm alive but am very swamped at the moment. ugh, ok. | you need to coordinate with joey hess before you upload the new | cdebconf. we need debconf to move to the new debconf-api dependency | as well. uhm, can't just cdebconf provide it for now and debconf provide it at next upload? Or what kind of coordination are you asking for? -- Tollef Fog Heen,''`. UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are : :' : `. `' `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: cdebconf upload
On 15 Aug 2002 15:34:30 +0200 Tollef Fog Heen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | you need to coordinate with joey hess before you upload the new | cdebconf. we need debconf to move to the new debconf-api dependency | as well. uhm, can't just cdebconf provide it for now and debconf provide it at next upload? Or what kind of coordination are you asking for? I've got a feeling that it would be nice just to upload first and coordinate later :P Uploading cdebconf (probably) doesn't break anything right now, does it? regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: cdebconf upload
I've got a feeling that it would be nice just to upload first and coordinate later :P Uploading cdebconf (probably) doesn't break anything right now, does it? it doesn't break anything, but it still leaves cdebconf more or less useless :) randolph -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cdebconf upload
unless somebody has some big objections, I'll upload cdebconf 0.21 tomorrow or so. tausq, it would be nice if you showed some life signs. :) -- Tollef Fog Heen,''`. UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are : :' : `. `' `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: cdebconf upload
In reference to a message from Tollef Fog Heen, dated Aug 14: unless somebody has some big objections, I'll upload cdebconf 0.21 tomorrow or so. tausq, it would be nice if you showed some life signs. :) i'm alive but am very swamped at the moment. you need to coordinate with joey hess before you upload the new cdebconf. we need debconf to move to the new debconf-api dependency as well. randolph -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
