Re: Bug#572605: still present -- installation-reports: Sid d-i on PowerPC can not find driver for network interface
On Wednesday 24 March 2010, Rick Thomas wrote: So how do we get this fixed? If it really is a problem on the buildd, who *can* fix it? Is there a list somewhere of who is responsible for which buildd? I've already provided that info a few times. For the centralized D-I buildds (which includes powerpc) Luk Claes and Otavio Salvador are the persons who set up the buildds and who are AFAIK the only people who currently have the access required to maintain the buildds. I have seen no mails from them on the d-boot list requesting help with that, so I can only assume they're still willing to maintain them (although the evidence seems to indicate otherwise). If it doesn't get fixed, there's not much point in claiming that Debian supports PowerPC architecture... Bullshit. I agree that it's a huge nuisance for testing and that the daily builds really should be available, but the alpha1 release works just fine (except for the known issues) and a next release will also not have this issue. For testing the current development status of the installer you could always build your own images. It's not that hard. Your point about not supporting powerpc is a gross exaggeration and to be honest I'm getting pretty tired of your repeating that any time *volunteers* don't jump quickly enough to your liking. So far I've also not seen that much actual help with arch-specific D-I development from the Debian powerpc community, despite repeated calls for help from our side. Cheers, FJP -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-powerpc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201003242125.01048.elen...@planet.nl
Re: Bug#572605: still present -- installation-reports: Sid d-i on PowerPC can not find driver for network interface
(Dropping some CCs.) On Wednesday 24 March 2010, Norberto Feliberty wrote: However maybe that has changed and will test a sid build and see if it can find the network drivers to install. That will only work if you build your own images. If you can do that, great! The fact that the official daily built images (which use the current udebs from Sid) are outdated and therefore not usable is exactly the point of this discussion. The daily built images are normally linked from [1], but I have removed the links for the problematic architectures a few weeks ago for this very reason. Cheers, FJP [1] http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-powerpc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201003242226.49228.elen...@planet.nl
Re: Bug#549681: needs MODULES=dep on some PowerPC systems
reassign 549681 base-installer severity 549681 normal tag 549681 help user debian-b...@lists.debian.org usertag 549681 powerpc thanks On Wednesday 24 March 2010, maximilian attems wrote: some OpenFirmware implementations, such as the one in the PegasosII, have a 12 MB size limit on kernel images, and no initrd loading capability. The latter is worked around by merging the initrd into the image with the mkvmlinuz tool, however the generated images are unbootable if they exceed 12 MB. It would be good if mkinitramfs would fail on systems that have the string platform: CHRP in /proc/cpuinfo if compressed kernel and initramfs together are larger than 12 MB, to stop unpleasant surprises when booting. partman has some checks for partitions, aboves specialised wish sound nice for debian installer although there are not many powerpc guys. Deciding on the MODULES= setting is done by base-installer. If somebody from the Debian PowerPC community can provide a tested patch for this we'll be happy to apply it. If help is needed developing the patch, feel free to ask on the debian-boot list. Cheers, FJP -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-powerpc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201003240306.03527.elen...@planet.nl
Re: Bug#572869: installation-reports: PowerMac G5 installation report: ofpath doesn't work in the absence of /proc/scsi/scsi
reassign 572869 yaboot 1.3.13a-1 clone 572869 -1 severity 572869 serious reassign -1 yaboot-installer 1.1.15 block -1 by 572869 tag -1 help thanks Thanks for the report Branden. On Sunday 07 March 2010, Branden Robinson wrote: Comments/Problems: Installation worked beautifully with the major exception of yaboot getting hopelessly confused. Evidently the ofpath utility has not been updated to handle the state of the world now that /proc/scsi/scsi is deprecated. I had to dredge out old OpenFirmware references and manually edit /etc/yaboot.conf, then run mkofboot. This generation of PowerMacs (the very last :-( ) uses SATA drives on a PCI-E bus. Once I stuffed OpenFirware device-tree magic into yaboot.conf, things sprinted to a finish. Even X worked on this foul NVidia device. Oddly, in rescue mode, the installer told me that installing yaboot failed, then told me it succeeded with the very next dialog. Its first guess was correct; I had to implement the fix myself at a shell prompt. This clearly needs a powerpc porter to look at. Therefore CCing the powerpc list. As the basic problem seems to be in ofpath, I'm reassigning to yaboot. ofpath will probably need to read sysfs instead of proc. But it's quite likely that yaboot-installer will need to be updated as well. The D-I team itself is short on powerpc knowledge and hardware and unlikely to be able to fix this, therefore tagging help. The place to start on the D-I side is the postinst script for yaboot-installer. The scripts in /lib/rescue.d/ will probably need updating as well. It's all shell script, so it should be simple enough. A good starting point for hacking on Debian Installer is: http://d-i.alioth.debian.org/doc/internals/ If any additional help is needed, please contact the debian-boot list. TIA, FJP -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-powerpc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201003071859.49858.elen...@planet.nl
Re: Has anybody recently done a Debian install on a playstation-3?
On Thursday 18 February 2010, Julian Hernandez Gomez wrote: What is the contents of /proc/cpuinfo for a PS3? [cpuinfo] Also, what is the output of 'archdetect' when run in a debug shell of the installer? powerpc/ps3 Thanks. I've added support for kernel selection for ps3 in SVN for the next upload of base-installer. If you want to test it before then, you can do so by manually making the following changes in /usr/lib/base-installer/kernel.sh before you get to the base-installer stage (e.g. during partitioning): - on the line just below 'case $CPU in', add '|cell' before the ')' - on the line just below 'case $SUBARCH in', add '|ps3' before the ')' Cheers, FJP -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-powerpc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201002181620.45441.elen...@planet.nl
Re: Has anybody recently done a Debian install on a playstation-3?
On Thursday 18 February 2010, Norberto Feliberty wrote: The only problem I encountered was that it could not find the correct kernel to install therefore a kernel had to be manually installed after the installation completed. What is the contents of /proc/cpuinfo for a PS3? Also, what is the output of 'archdetect' when run in a debug shell of the installer? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-powerpc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201002180541.47909.elen...@planet.nl
Re: Problems with Debian PowerPC
On Friday 18 December 2009, Philipp Kern wrote: While I did not take care about the fallout due to time constraints on my side, I did take a look at the meta-gnome2 migration back then. We did not place any approval hint but it seems that the multiple arch:all confused britney sufficiently so that she decided to migrate those packages without any hint at all. Sadly I was unable to track down the bug in question and our log keeping is currently almost non-existant. As soon as something is copied over to testing autobuilding is automatically stopped, which might be another bug of its own. So, what can be done to fix the current breakage? Cheers, FJP -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-powerpc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Problems with Debian PowerPC
On Thursday 17 December 2009, Rick Thomas wrote: I have listed several problems that exist in Sid and Squeeze, some of which prevent successful installation (even though there is nothing wrong with the installer). The problems in Sid are not interesting as they will fix themselves. What problems exist in Squeeze? Please file an installation report. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-powerpc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Problems with Debian PowerPC
On Thursday 17 December 2009, Rick Thomas wrote: What problems exist in Squeeze? Here's the Squeeze problem (from my original posting in this thread): 3) When I install a graphical desktop environment with Squeeze using the above d-i images, I get a system that is missing almost all of gnome due to un-resolvable dependency conflicts. Ah, sorry. I'd not read that correctly. I thought you were talking about sid there too. That invalidates part of my earlier responses. So, it can be - a general problem resulting from the release team forcing through some migration and thus (*temporarily*) breaking dependencies - an architecture specific problem where the release team has decided to ignore breakage on powerpc in order not to delay other arches - an unknown issue I've just checked if the gnome task is installable for Squeeze on amd64, and it is. So either the problem has already been solved, or it is specific to powerpc. Please file an installation report. I did, a while ago: Bug#560684 OK. I missed that one (or deleted it without really looking at it as it wasn't an issue I'm personally very interested in). I would expect Otavio as D-I release manager to be interested in the installability of Gnome as it affects his plans to release D-I alpha1. (And please do not over-inflate the severity of bug reports: a desktop environment not being installable does not make the installation system unusable.) But you'll just say there is *nothing* wrong with the installer, so what's the point? The point is that *we* cannot do anything about it. You need to report problems to the people responsible for the packages that are failing. I'll repeat my offer: What can I, as a non developer -- just an interested and willing tester, do to help? Find out the exact cause of the problems and report them to the relevant maintainers: - which packages have dependency problems - is the problem only on powerpc, or is it general These things can be found out relatively simply using aptitude and packages.debian.org. Cheers, FJP -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-powerpc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Problems with Debian PowerPC
On Thursday 17 December 2009, Rick Thomas wrote: It may not be grave for the installer (indeed, you've already established at great length that it's not an installer problem at all) but that doesn't make it any the less grave for whatever package it does belong to. You've given me a few hints as to how to figure out what package that might be. Any further help -- from anyone more knowledgeable than I -- will be appreciated, of course. This looks like a fairly likely reason: http://packages.debian.org/squeeze/gnome-core For some reason the package was forced to testing even though it was not available on all architectures. If that is the reason, then it means that Gnome is currently not installable on all but 5 architectures. With powerpc probably the only one very many people will really care about (though that's a steadily declining number). It's almost certain that both the relevant package maintainer and the release team are already aware of this and that it has been a conscious choice to accept the breakage. Whether or not it should block the release of D-I is up to others. How did I get there (I needed the roundabout way because I don't have a powerpc box; it would have been trivial to check in aptitude)? - http://edos.debian.net/edos-debcheck/ - choose squeeze - in the most recent run, choose powerpc - http://edos.debian.net/edos-debcheck/results/testing/1261006803/powerpc/list.php And notice that gnome-accessibility (and a few others, but that seems the most likely cause) is listed, and check the reasons. A new version of the package (1:2.28+3) has been built for all arches: https://buildd.debian.org/~luk/status/package.php?p=meta-gnome2 But looks to be blocked by other packages for now: http://release.debian.org/migration/testing.pl?package=meta-gnome2 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-powerpc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Problems with Debian PowerPC
On Thursday 17 December 2009, Steve Langasek wrote: Given that the package version clearly indicates it reached testing by way of testing-proposed-updates, I think it's unwise to assume this. Cc:ing debian-release for input on the uninstallability of gnome in testing. You're right, I missed that. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-powerpc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Problems with Debian PowerPC
On Thursday 17 December 2009, Frans Pop wrote: On Thursday 17 December 2009, Steve Langasek wrote: Given that the package version clearly indicates it reached testing by way of testing-proposed-updates, I think it's unwise to assume this. Cc:ing debian-release for input on the uninstallability of gnome in testing. You're right, I missed that. OTOH, it must still have been consciously accepted from testing-p-u into testing by the release team, despite missing arches. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-powerpc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Problems with Debian PowerPC
On Thursday 17 December 2009, Rogério Brito wrote: I will see with Otávio what can be done from the d-i side of it (I'm not really up to d-i things, since I've been working with the main distribution instead of with installers). But I can try to look at it. I already replied to the original mail on the d-boot list [1], but had missed the fact it was so heavily cross-posted. Please don't waste any time on this as there really is nothing wrong here. All mentioned issues have just one cause: sid being unstable, exactly as it is supposed to be. Users who want to install sid are almost always better of first installing testing and then upgrading to sid. This will avoid most of the issues unstable can have at any time, such as uninstallable packages due to library transitions or missing kernel packages due to build failures for a particular architecture. Again, there is *nothing* wrong with the installer here. We welcome reports of issues with installations of testing, but issues with sid are seldom caused by problems in the installer. Note that additional help with the installer, especially for non-mainstream arches like powerpc, is very much wanted. So if anyone does want to help, please do join the d-boot list, and start testing and working on issues. Cheers, FJP [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2009/12/msg00257.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-powerpc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: PowerPC daily install CDs? [Was: Re: Netinst for testing?]
On Sunday 25 October 2009, Rick Thomas wrote: On Oct 24, 2009, at 10:03 PM, Frans Pop wrote: Links to current images are available from: http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/ Cheers, FJP Hmmm... If I follow that link, then click on • netinst ... and businesscard ... CD images ... [powerpc] I get taken to a directory that claims This build finished at Thu Oct 1 23:28:01 UTC 2009. Is it possible that PowerPC CD builds have been down for over three weeks and nobody noticed? That's very likely the case. Looks to me that the general state of builds is rather pathetic ATM: http://people.debian.org/~joeyh/d-i/build-logs.html Hard to see how people expect to be able to do a D-I release (as mentioned in the logs from the last team meeting) given that fact (amongst others). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-powerpc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: PowerPC daily install CDs? [Was: Re: Netinst for testing?]
Looks to me that the general state of builds is rather pathetic ATM: Sorry. I should have just written Looks like there are quite a few problems with builds ATM. Does not change the facts or the likelyhood of a successful upload/release any time soon though. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-powerpc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Processed (with 1 errors): your mail
reassign 481844 installation-guide-powerpc retitle 481844 Document disklabel type to use for various subarches and why severity 481844 minor tag 481844 help thanks The supplied logs are with manual partitioning the disk, it seems that it is not sufficient with only a NewWorld boot partition (Apple_Bootloader). Actually the error was choosing msdos when partitioning the entire disk, instead mac should have been selected. The partition table (I suppose) was missing from the disk, which seems to be needed. It does not state this anywhere, it just says that you need to have a NewWorld boot partition. It would be a good thing to put in Appendix C of the installation manual for PowerPC. As already mentioned on IRC, the basic error here was to deviate from the default disklabel type offered by the installer. There's a good reason expert mode is called expert: it presumes you know what you're doing. Although this is user error, I have no problem with documenting the correct partition types to use for various powerpc systems in the installation guide. However, since that is a nice mess (see below), this should be done by someone more familiar with the port than I am. Patches welcome! partman-partitioning/lib/disk-label.sh lists the following default disklabels (as per the D-I Lenny Beta 2 release): powerpc) case $sub in apus) echo amiga;; amiga) echo amiga;; chrp) echo msdos;; chrp_rs6k|chrp_ibm) echo msdos;; chrp_pegasos) echo amiga;; pasemi) echo msdos;; prep) echo msdos;; powermac_newworld) echo mac;; powermac_oldworld) echo mac;; ps3) echo msdos;; cell) echo msdos;; *) echo UNKNOWN;; esac;; Not that some of these subarches are not actually supported anymore. Cheers, FJP signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Bug#481844: [Installation Guide] Document disklabel type to use for various subarches and why
On Tuesday 20 May 2008, Frans Pop wrote: Although this is user error, I have no problem with documenting the correct partition types to use for various powerpc systems in the installation guide. However, since that is a nice mess (see below), this should be done by someone more familiar with the port than I am. Patches welcome! Sorry folks. Forgot to change the subject of the mail. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Bug#469030: debian ppc64 not booting after install
On Friday 07 March 2008, Ulrich Enslin wrote: Using the rescue I booted into a chroot of the installed system. Installed the correct 64 bit kernel with 'aptitude install linux-image-2.6-powerpc64' and that solved the problem. This does point to a bug in the installer though. Yes, it does. Looking at the log, it seems that your system was misdetected as 'powerpc', while it should be 'powerpc64'. Could you please also send us the hardware-summary file (that's also in /var/lib/installer)? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#469030: debian ppc64 not booting after install
tags 469030 + pending thanks On Friday 07 March 2008, Ulrich Enslin wrote: Frans Pop wrote: On Friday 07 March 2008, Ulrich Enslin wrote: Using the rescue I booted into a chroot of the installed system. Installed the correct 64 bit kernel with 'aptitude install linux-image-2.6-powerpc64' and that solved the problem. This does point to a bug in the installer though. Yes, it does. Looking at the log, it seems that your system was misdetected as 'powerpc', while it should be 'powerpc64'. Could you please also send us the hardware-summary file (that's also in /var/lib/installer)? Please find attached the '/var/log/installer/hardware-summary'. Thanks. That neatly identifies the cause of the problem. For your system /proc/cpuinfo has: cpu : RS64-IV (sstar) And currently we only check for: power3|i-star|s-star|power4|power4+|ppc970*|power5|power5+ I have added detection for your system and have also queued that change for the next stable point release. Thanks for reporting the issue and providing the needed info. Cheers, FJP signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Bug#469030: debian ppc64 not booting after install
On Friday 07 March 2008, Ulrich Enslin wrote: Since you are going to update the code, can you also check that you are catering for a IBM RS6000 (7026-H70) and IBM pseries 630 (7028-6C4). The second already was supported, but I've updated the patch to also catch the first. As Olof suggested we now also test for 'rs64-*'. Thanks again. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#469030: debian ppc64 not booting after install
On Thursday 06 March 2008, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote: Should the kernel not have a 64 somewhere in the name. Yes I think you have the wrong kernel installed. Try to install linux-image-2.6-powerpc64. Try aptitude install linux-image-2.6-powerpc64 after booting into rescue mode and mounting /proc and /sys (see below). Could you please send us the syslog (gzipped!) for the installation so we can check what exactly happened during kernel selection? It should be in /var/log/installer/ on the installed system. TIA, FJP (Please keep both the bug report and the d-powerpc list in the address list) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#469030: debian ppc64 not booting after install
On Sunday 02 March 2008, Ulrich Enslin wrote: I installed debian 40r3 on a IBM Power 620 (7025-f0). The install was successful, but the system did not boot from the scsi disc, with the output shown below. Welcome to yaboot version 1.3.13 Enter help to get some basic usage information boot: Linux old boot: Linux Please wait, loading kernel... Elf32 kernel loaded... Loading ramdisk... ramdisk loaded at 0220, size: 5264 Kbytes OF stdout device is: /[EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED] command line: root=/dev/sda4 ro console=ttyS0 memory layout at init: alloc_bottom : 02724000 alloc_top: alloc_top_hi : rmo_top : ram_top : Looking for displays alloc_down() called with mem not initialized EXIT called ok 0 So the installation went OK, but the reboot failed. This looks like a kernel issue to me, although it could also be something related to the bootloader or the initrd. Unfortunately there is very little powerpc knowledge inside the debian-installer team at the moment. One thing you could try is to boot the installer again in rescue mode and rebuild the initrd (using update-initramfs -u) from a chroot of the installed system. You should also check that the kernel that was installed is the correct one for your system. Maybe someone on the powerpc mailing list can help further. If that does not work, I'd suggest contacting the powerpc kernel developers. Please let us know if you find out anything. Cheers, FJP signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Bug#443272: Partitions detected with mac-fdisk, but not with partman.
On Monday 05 November 2007, Charles Plessy wrote: I have tested the latest daily install disk, Debian GNU/Linux testing Lenny - Official Snapshot powerpc BC Binary-1 20071104-10:21, and when it arrives to Partman, it does not manage to detect my partition table. You do not say anything about what type of system this is. Please do always provide that information! For the partman log, I attach it to the mail because it is a bit long. There is basically nothing at all in the partman log about /dev/sda. This makes it most likely that libparted just does not recognize your partition table. A few questions before we reassign this report to libparted: - to check if the drive itself (and the partition table) are correctly identified by the kernel: what's the output of 'dmesg | grep sda' - to check if libparted is the problem: could you check (using some life CD for example) if the utility 'parted' recognizes the table Cheers, FJP -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#443272: Partitions detected with mac-fdisk, but not with partman.
reassign libparted1.7-1 1.7.1-5.1 thanks On Monday 05 November 2007, Charles Plessy wrote: I attached the hardware-summary to this mail to be more complete. My machine is a bi-G5 powermac with a new 500 Gb hard drive that contains a fresh OS X (10.4) installation and a lot of free space to do some real work with Debian. I tested with a Ubuntu 6.10 live, because I am not aware of a Debian live CD which boots on G5 machines. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# parted /dev/sda GNU Parted 1.7.1 Good. Same version of parted we have in Debian. Using /dev/sda Welcome to GNU Parted! Type 'help' to view a list of commands. (parted) print Error: The partition's data region doesn't occupy the entire partition. Ignore/Cancel? i This error must be what's causing partman to not recognize the disk. Disk /dev/sda: 500GB Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B Partition Table: mac Number Start End SizeFile system Name Flags 1 0.51kB 32.8kB 32.3kB primary 3 457GB 457GB 134MB hfs+ primary 4 457GB 500GB 42.7GB hfsx primary It seems that something in this partition table makes parted uncomfortable... OK. That clearly makes it an issue the libparted maintainers should look at. However, it may very well be that the parted maintainers will need help from a powerpc porter to trace and resolve this issue. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[D-I] Kernel/module udebs status - massbuild script update
(Reply-to set to debian-boot list) kernel udeb status == Because I had to test the changes below anyway, I have done what I guess will be my last massbuild and upload of kernel/module udebs. All arches are now at 2.6.21-2, with the following exceptions: - sparc: at 2.6.20 because sparc32 is not enabled in 2.6.21; I've been waiting for a formal decision about whether sparc32 is going to be dropped for lenny or not [1]; Jurij Smakov is going to follow up on that soon - hppa: at 2.6.18 because the parisc64 kernels are seriously broken [2]; however, it may be better to update the kernel despite this - powerpc: at 2.6.18; until now we've never had all needed source packages available; I've asked Colin to do the update and hope he'll find time soon We'll switch the updated arches to 2.6.21-2 once they are through NEW. All up-to-date arches now have both loop-eas and squashfs module udebs, except: - arm: only loop-aes as squashfs is not available - m68k: has neither because loop-aes was never available and given current status of the arch it does not really make sense to upload for only squashfs massbuild script With the addition by Otavio of squashfs udebs to the linux-module-di packages (for the live CD project), a new version of the massbuild script was needed to support the fact that there are now two dependencies (binaries from loop-aes and linux-modules-extra-2.6). Today I have made the necessary changes and in the process merged the two previous scripts and the new script more generic. There were of course some challenges (especially the version numbering for squashfs). Some highlights: - desired version of dependencies is no longer passed as a parameter, but read from a file 'massbuild.versions' - the --incoming option will now make the build try incoming _after_ trying the regular mirror - a separate line is added in the changelog for each build dependency and specifies the version the package was built against - the '-m changelog text' option will now _add_ an extra line in the changelog instead of overruling the default entries; if multiple lines are passed, they will be added as separate entries As all these changes IMO make the script mature enough, I have moved it to the packages/kernel directory in trunk. Cheers, FJP [1] So far this has only been discussed, but the project has not yet made a formal decision: - http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2007/05/msg7.html - http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2007/05/msg00804.html [2] http://bugs.debian.org/426391 pgpwwv1uuNWxW.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#429985: PPC installer kernel panic from libc problem
On Thursday 21 June 2007 16:21, Peter Czanik wrote: Installation fails right after the kernel is booted with the following message: /bin/sh: symbol lookup error: /lib/libc.so.6: undefined symbol: _rtld_global Kernel panic - not syncing: attembed to kill init! With today's daily images, this issue should now be fixed. It would be great if you could confirm that. Note that CD images will only be fixed after the next bi-daily build, which should be available in about 4 hours from now. The cause behind this issue is that there have been major changes in the toolchain (libc, gcc, ...) since the release of Etch which has caused the library reduction used when creating installer images to fail in different ways on different architectures. Almost all architectures have been affected and it has taken a fair amount of work from the D-I developers and various toolchain maintainers to trace and fix these regressions. A relatively recent change in kernel-wedge fixed this for a number of architectures [1], but it sometimes takes a while for all machines that take care of daily builds to be updated to the latest version of packages used during builds. I hope this explains the situation somewhat and we're sorry for any inconvenience, but on the other hand we did put up a notice some time ago on [1] explaining that, because of the major changes happening after the release of Etch, issues with daily builds are to be expected [2]. Let me also use this opportunity to remind the Debian PowerPC community that are still looking for people willing to get involved more in the installer for PowerPC and help us deal with port-specific issues. In this case, this bug report from Peter was the first indication that this issue also affected powerpc (thanks for submitting the report Peter!). (Please reply to the d-powerpc and d-boot mailing lists and not to the bug report if you'd like to respond to this last part.) Cheers, FJP [1] We currently still have an issue for alpha open. [2] http://wiki.debian.org/DebianInstaller/Today P.S. For those of who are not already aware of this fact, I have resigned from Debian and thus as Release Manager for D-I. As there is not yet a new RM for D-I, I am still taking care of some areas, but that should diminish over the next weeks. pgpg4lAkGto6U.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#429985: PPC installer kernel panic from libc problem
On Monday 02 July 2007 10:46, Peter Czanik wrote: I can't help you with coding, but I don't think, that testing the PPC installer once or twice a week on Pegasos PPC would be a problem for me. That is an excellent offer. However, without somebody else from the PowerPC community able to help with tracing and fixing port specific issues, only testing may lead to frustration. The main problem is that the general D-I people often cannot really help with issues they cannot reproduce on the architectures they do have access to, which includes any issues related to powerpc kernels, and architecture specific file systems and bootloaders, which in practice means most issues reported for powerpc. My only remark on this would be, that such a critical bug like this was (the installer dies early), should have a bit earlier response, not just when it is fixed. In general I agree with you, but the timing of the BR (it coincided with DebConf, which was very busy, but also very productive and a lot of fun) contributed to that not happening. I also hoped (and expected) that the build machine would have been updated earlier, in which case the bug could have been closed earlier. However, for that we do depend on other volunteers and unfortunately things got delayed. As I said, we had already been working for a long time on lib reduction issues, I had your report flagged as ToDo in my mailbox [1] and I also feel that the issue was to some extend covered by the general message on the D-I/Today wiki page. Also, the fact that we currently do not have an active PowerPC porter to help remind us of such issues _and_ do not have a D-I Release Manager really does not help. For what it's worth, again my apologies for that. Cheers, FJP [1] To give you some perspective, I currently have two mailboxes with D-I issues (not all bug/installation reports) I've been meaning to get back to sometime, totalling some 2500 messages... D-I is a relatively large and complex project, and basically we just don't have enough manpower to deal with everything as promptly as we'd like. pgp82r1dt9weG.pgp Description: PGP signature
miboot package available from alioth (was: floppies, a radical proposal)
On Saturday 02 June 2007 20:08, Frans Pop wrote: On Friday 01 June 2007 20:18, Sven Luther wrote: Make sure you grab a copy of the miboot packages from http://people.debian.org/~luther/miboot, before they get erased. I have saved these for now in my new ~ on alioth. I'll probably move them under d-i somewhere until someone claims them. And it's now available at: http://d-i.alioth.debian.org/pub/miboot/ I have not saved the floppy images Sven also had in that directory as they were ancient. Cheers, FJP pgpmVTlEqQMUH.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Powerpc netinst CD when selected install64 installs only powerpc not powerpc64 kernel image!
(Dropping debian-cd as this is not really an issue for them.) On Thursday 24 May 2007 12:09, Michal Semler wrote: Today I found serious error in powerpc netinst image, where I selected install64 to install 64bit kernel. Installation continues and finishes well, but system is unable to be booted from harddrive. After a while checking, I found out, that installer installed linux-kernel-2.6.18-4-powerpc.deb image instead of linux-kernel-2.6.18-4-powerpc64.deb which results everytime into not-booting machine. Can anybody help me how to boot with rescue64 to my installed /dev/sda2 partition? I am not familiar with yaboot. I'm afraid I cannot help you with repairing your current install as I'm not familiar with powerpc, but I would like to try to find out why the wrong kernel was installed. Exactly what netinst image were you using? Official Etch or a daily build? Please give the full URL of the image you used. AFAICT, the powerpc64 should be included on the netinst CD. Could you verify that it is? It should be in /cdrom/pool/main/l/linux-2.6. If it is there, could you send us the syslog for the installation? You can find it /var/log/installer on the installed system. Please send it gzipped! Cheers, FJP pgptDOmmbOi2P.pgp Description: PGP signature
[D-I] Updating kernel udebs to 2.6.20
Hello D-I porters, Most architectures should now be able to switch to 2.6.20 for D-I (except for arm, hppa and m68k). i386 and amd64 have already been switched. Over the past two weeks Joey has done the needed work for i386 and amd64 (and necessary updates in kernel-wedge), but we've waited with this call until #419458 was resolved (which it was in 2.6.20-3). As this is a fairly big jump (2.6.18 to 2.6.20), please check carefully for new modules that should be included in the udebs. If any updates in kernel-wedge are needed, please let us know (or do them yourself). I suggest that you check the kernel-wedge changelog for an overview of the changes made there. Please also check pending changes already committed in SVN by Joey or me. Note that although new PATA modules were added in kernel-wedge, most of these are not actually available yet in the kernel as a result of #419458. After you upload the new linux-kernel-* package, I will make sure that the linux-modules-* (loop-aes modules) will also be uploaded for your architecture. For mips(el): In input-modules for bcm* kernels, usbmouse is currently included. AFAIK that module should not be needed and that module could be removed. Cheers, FJP pgpoPwpbyMsxa.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian has failed us
On Thursday 11 January 2007 18:40, Mathew Binkley wrote: Our current cluster is divided between 840 Intel/AMD x86 processors, and 672 IBM PowerPC 970FX processors. To date, we have required different operating systems on each architecture because of poor OS support for the PowerPC's. Etch supports PowerPC's running in 64-bit mode, so I was eager to try it on our cluster several months ago. I uncovered a small bug in the installer (the AMD 74xx driver was not compiled in the debian-installer kernel) which prevented me from installing Debian, and reported it to False: it was not compiled into the standard Debian kernel. The installer does not use custom kernels. This was explained to you at the time. the PowerPC list in September 2006. I was promised that the driver would be included shortly. Please check your facts before sending such mails: # dpkg -c ide-modules-2.6.18-3-powerpc64-di_1.26_powerpc.udeb | grep 74xx -rw-r--r-- root/root 31848 2006-12-10 18:43 ./lib/modules/2.6.18-3-powerpc64/kernel/drivers/ide/pci/amd74xx.ko The daily build Etch images have been using this udeb for a bit more than a month. The delay in getting the module included in the installer has been completely on the side of the regular kernel package, and not the installer. Other images (RC1, weekly builds) do not yet have the module because we (the installer team) are still waiting for the kernel team to upload a new 2.6.18 kernel before we can work on our own next release. I'll ignore the rest of your rant as it is obviously based on false assumptions. Cheers, FJP P.S. Some apologies would be appreciated. pgptBiSwWSmF1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian has failed us
Allow me to correct myself on some minor points. On Thursday 11 January 2007 19:18, Frans Pop wrote: The daily build Etch images have been using this udeb for a bit more than a month. It was even a bit longer: installer images have included the module since about Nov 20. The delay in getting the module included in the installer has been completely on the side of the regular kernel package, and not the installer. This is not totally accurate. The module was included first in the upload of the regular kernel on Okt 21, so there was a delay of about a month on the D-I side. However, the installer could only switch to a 2.6.18 kernel for daily builds after the release of D-I RC1, and uncertainty about the question if we could or could not use the 2.6.18 kernel for that release was one of the factors that took a while (though not overly long). The choice not to enable the module in the 2.6.17 kernel (which would have allowed us to support the hardware in RC1) but only in 2.6.18, was one made by the PowerPC kernel maintainer. pgpgQKZyhfIf2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian has failed us
On Thursday 11 January 2007 19:29, Mathew Binkley wrote: I did, by downloading the latest Debian Etch testing iso (which was regenerated on January 8, three days ago) and it failed at exactly the same place, with exactly the same error. And we are supposed to guess that by telepathic means or something? Please file a new installation report [1] including (gzipped!) the following files you get when you run the Save debug logs option from the installer's main menu (after the partitioning failure): hardware-summary status syslog Cheers, FJP Note: if you are really interested in solving this issue, I suggest we discontinue this useless thread and stop bothering a lot of people who can't help you anyway, and instead concentrate on that installation report from now on. [1] http://d-i.alioth.debian.org/manual/en.i386/ch05s03.html#submit-bug pgp6dUptUj6Ut.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian has failed us
On Friday 12 January 2007 03:54, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: Yes, I've seen various mails/rants etc... and haven't wanted to take part of it neither in the past, but it looks like this has gone too far, and it's more and more looking like even perfectly good bug fixes that are needed for most users are being rejected on the sole basis of the person they originate from. Either that or somebody has an agenda of fucking up powerpc support in debian... For those who really, actually care about D-I support for PowerPC... Please take a look at the history for these two recent bug reports before forming your opinion: - http://bugs.debian.org/405572 - http://bugs.debian.org/405579 Oh, and also, it currently still looks like the issue that started this ridiculous thread _is_ actually resolved in the version of the installer that will be shipped with Etch... And so have most of the other PowerPC-specific issues that have been identified over the past few months... Please don't be fooled by the one-sided and biased information that you've been getting on this mailing list over the past months. The Debian Installer team _does_ care about properly supporting _all_ Debian ports, and spends significant amounts of time coordinating and testing the installer for _all_ ports. Just as the team cares about supporting as many languages as possible. Cheers, but getting tired of this unfounded bullshit, FJP pgp83Vr3qD0Md.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Who is actively porting the Debian architectures?
On Saturday 30 December 2006 14:24, Sven Luther wrote: I think both me and waldi qualify for this, i am unsure of the others, List changed to only Waldi and Sven for now. Let us know if others need to (re)added. Cheers, FJP pgpiarrzZOKhW.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Who is actively porting the Debian architectures?
On Tuesday 26 December 2006 08:32, Sven Luther wrote: On Mon, Dec 25, 2006 at 11:40:02PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote: We received a BR that the list of porters for PowerPC on the Organization webpage [1] was outdated. However, this seems to be true for most ports. Please reply to debian-www@lists.debian.org with an updated list of active porters for your port after discussing changes on your port list. BTW, i wonder about not only adding but removing folk. The PowerPC porter list has for example Hartmut, which i don't have seen (at all) since 2000 or so. Anyone know about the whereabout of Hartmut Koptein ? I also wonder if Dan and Martin/Joey still consider themselves as active PowerPC porters. The currently active porters are the best judge of that. Please discuss on the d-powerpc list and mail the desired changes to the d-www list. I made no suggestions for that as I just don't know most of the people involved. BTW, Maybe we should have some emeritus page or whatever, where we also list people who have been active in important parts of debian in the past, but for whatever reason left, or moved to other responsabilities. Just removing these folks from the porter page also somehow feels wrong. I'd suggest to use the port page for that: http://www.debian.org/ports/powerpc/ pgpuL3AdXa6Zl.pgp Description: PGP signature
[D-I] Last chance to update the Installation Guide for Etch
Hello porters, I've just announced the schedule [1] for the release of the Installation Guide to be included with the Etch release. That schedule leaves room for bigger updates until Dec 31 and for minor ones until Jan 7. This means that if you have any updates you'd like to get in for your port, there is not much time left. From Jan 1, please consult before directly committing any updates (or send patches). My apologies for not sending out a reminder earlier. Cheers, FJP [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/12/msg01492.html pgpVJkZ3gYsiC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#404522: Please update the PowerPC porters list
On Monday 25 December 2006 22:55, Aurélien GÉRÔME wrote: It occurs to me that the list of PowerPC porters is not up-to-date in the Debian's Organizational Structure page at [1]. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that Daniel Jacobowitz and Hartmut Koptein are not active anymore. Martin Schulze is still active in Debian, though. Actually, what I found quite surprising is that this list misses the name of Sven Luther. Hence, this bug report asks for the addition of his name to the list of PowerPC porters. Thanks for considering. Cheers, [1] http://www.debian.org/intro/organization Changes in the list of (active) porters should probably be discussed on the debian-powerpc list first. Cheers, FJP pgpqmrIwBSNsQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Who is actively porting the Debian architectures?
(BCCed to d-ports) Hello, We received a BR that the list of porters for PowerPC on the Organization webpage [1] was outdated. However, this seems to be true for most ports. Please reply to debian-www@lists.debian.org with an updated list of active porters for your port after discussing changes on your port list. The current list is: Alpha -- debian-alpha@lists.debian.org member Ivan E. Moore III member Christopher C. Chimelis AMD64 -- debian-amd64@lists.debian.org member Frederik Schüler [EMAIL PROTECTED] member Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] ARM -- debian-arm@lists.debian.org member Philip Blundell member Othmar Pasteka i386 -- debian-devel@lists.debian.org member James Troup [EMAIL PROTECTED] member Roman Hodek [EMAIL PROTECTED] member Ryan Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] IA-64 -- debian-ia64@lists.debian.org member Bdale Garbee member Matthew Wilcox member Randolph Chung m68k -- debian-68k@lists.debian.org member Roman Hodek member Christian T. Steigies member Michael Schmitz member Adam Conrad member Stephen R. Marenka member Wouter Verhelst MIPS -- debian-mips@lists.debian.org member Ryan Murray member Guido Günther PA-RISC -- debian-hppa@lists.debian.org member Bdale Garbee member Matthew Wilcox member Randolph Chung PowerPC -- debian-powerpc@lists.debian.org member Daniel Jacobowitz member Martin Schulze member Hartmut Koptein S/390 -- debian-s390@lists.debian.org member Gerhard Tonn SPARC/UltraSPARC -- debian-sparc@lists.debian.org member Ben Collins member James Troup SuperH -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] I would suggest at least the following changes: Alpha: add Steve Langasek ARM: add Martin Michlmayr HPPA: add Kyle McMartin IA-64: add Dann Frazier MIPS: add Thiemo Seufer PowerPC: add Sven Luther and Bastian Blank Sparc: add Jurij Smakov S/390: add Bastian Blank Note: you may also wish to review and update the port pages under [2]. Cheers, FJP [1] http://www.debian.org/intro/organization [2] http://www.debian.org/ports/ pgpUCCTJuZsdk.pgp Description: PGP signature
[D-I] Please update kernel udebs to 2.6.18-6
We are ready to make the switch to 2.6.18 for Debian Installer. For most architectures the 2.6.18-6 (ABI -3) should now be available in unstable. Please update the kernel udebs for your architecture ASAP. Cheers, FJP pgph4SMqkX1kQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Debian Installer - Call for testing *this week*
(Please reply to the debian-boot list.) Preparations for Release Candidate 1 of the installer have now really started. All important functional changes are now included in the daily images. In order improve the quality of the release and reduce the number of nasty surprises afterwards, it would be great if we could get some help testing the installer during *this week*. Please make sure you use one of the _daily built_ images available from: http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/ or http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/daily-builds/daily/arch-latest/ and file an installation report with your findings: http://d-i.alioth.debian.org/manual/en.i386/ch05s03.html#submit-bug See this wiki page for a general overview of the planned release, including known issues: http://wiki.debian.org/DebianInstaller/EtchRC1Prep Testing the installer for your favorite architecture(s) === This is the main focus for this call for testing. Please let us know if there are any important issues, especially regressions from previous releases. If you can, try different installation methods. Note that the installer still uses 2.6.17. Main reason is that 2.6.18 is not yet ready to migrate to testing and switching to 2.6.18 would therefore block RC1 of d-i. Depending on the kernel team and RMs, we may still switch to 2.6.18 before RC1, but switching immediately afterwards looks more likely. Other things to test There is a number of other things that could be tested, mostly new functionality that was added recently: - graphical installer, especially whether your mouse and touchpad work correctly - crypto support in partman: the installer now has crypto support both for guided [1] and manual [2] partitioning; thorough tests, including of the actual security of the installed system, very, very welcome - automatic raid partitioning (preseeded only [1]) - 2.6 based installation floppies for i386 - support for non-standard filesystems (i.e. anything other than ext3) - if you speak a language other than English, consider installing in that language; note that one last round of translation updates is still planned, but reports of issues are still appreciated TIA, Frans Pop [1]http://d-i.alioth.debian.org/manual/en.i386/ch06s03.html#di-partition [2]http://d-i.alioth.debian.org/manual/en.i386/ch06s03.html#partman-crypto [3]http://d-i.alioth.debian.org/manual/en.i386/apbs04.html#preseed-partman-raid pgpqJ1XAAkAZz.pgp Description: PGP signature
D-I RC1 - release planning - soft freeze for changes in SVN
Things are finally starting to come together for RC1. - We've found a good work-around for the bug in g-i where selected lines in multi-select lists would not be shown. We need new versions of some gtk packages for that, but these have now been uploaded. Thanks especially to Loïc Minier for his fast packaging work! - The last important open TODO items were done during the past week: - 2.6 floppy support for i386 - partman-auto-raid (only through preseeding) We currently still have some blocking bugs: - regression in the progress bar in the newt frontend (#391676) - incorrect display for CJK languages (newt/slang: #392942/392987) - keyboard support on mips SGI Indigo2 (#382983) - floppies too big for powerpc (should be possible to resolve using new infrastructure by Sylvain Ferriol) The release preparation page on the wiki [1] is mostly up-to-date with regards to issues and TODO items before the release. The page also lists the changes implemented since Beta 3 which will be used as basis for the release notes; let me know if you miss items. Soft freeze for commits === We should now stop making structural changes in the installer, but bug fixing is still possible. If you have doubts if a commit is OK, please contact me. Also, please contact me before uploading if you have any doubts. Please start testing the installer for all architectures NOW All udebs with functional changes have now been uploaded, so this is an excellent time to test different architectures using *daily* images! We can now still make changes. Please don't wait until the last moment to test and find out there are architecture specific issues. Release planning The schedule was becoming too complex as there are two sets of migrations to testing: an initial one for current state and a final one with fixes and translation updates. I have therefore split it into two separate and partially overlapping schedules. It is also somewhat optimistic, so some slippage is likely. If there is slippage, is is likely to be a full week. If we switch to 2.6.18 before RC1, that will also likely cause a weeks delay. I have not planned very long periods for testing. I'd rather use RC1 itself for extensive testing and fix remaining issues in RC2. INITIAL UPLOAD -- NowString freeze; soft freeze for commits, bug fixing OK 16Oct Start migrating current udebs to testing 16-22 Oct Architecture tests based on daily images; fix where needed !!! 20/21 Oct First upload of debian-installer 21/22 Oct Implement necessary changes in debian-cd 25Oct Weekly full CD build for new installer 26-29 Oct Testing and fixes for full CDs FINAL UPLOAD 22Oct End of string freeze; full freeze for udebs 23Oct Upload all udebs with translation updates or pending changes 25/26 Oct Most udebs should have migrated to testing 26Oct Final build and upload of d-i 27Oct Switch daily links to etch_d-i 27-30 Oct Final testing using daily images 30Oct Weekly full CD build 1- 4 Nov Further testing 1- 4 Nov Preparation of release notes, errata, etc. 5Nov Migration of d-i to testing 3/ 4 Nov CD builds 5Nov Release P.S. I have accepted an invitation to participate in a workshop to develop a customized installer/distribution in Bhutan (thanks to Christian). I will be gone from 5-22 November, but will still be able to work on release issues part-time while there. [1] http://wiki.debian.org/DebianInstaller/EtchRC1Prep pgpqTX2LGWwpV.pgp Description: PGP signature
linux-2.6: [powerpc] Please enable the amd74xx driver
clone 391451 -1 reassign -1 linux-2.6 retitle -1 linux-2.6: [powerpc] Please enable the amd74xx driver block 391451 with -1 thanks The on-board hard drive (40 GB Fujitsu MHT2040AS, 2.5, parallel ATA) is not detected. lspci shows the driver as an AMD 8111, but neither the kernel nor /lib/modules seem to have the amd74xx driver. Please enable this ide driver for powerpc. It seems to be needed. Cheers, FJP P.S. It would be really great if the powerpc kernel maintainer would do his own basic research before crying that it is a d-i problem and making the D-I release manager do his work for him. This has been the _last time_ I have looked into things for powerpc as in almost all cases I only have to find out that the problem *is not in the installer*! The Debian powerpc port needs more active porters pgpTDxj5cEJyh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian Etch on IBM JS20 fails on hard drive
On Friday 06 October 2006 17:49, Sven Luther wrote: Frans, can you comment ? I saw you commited this fix, but maybe you didn't upload it yet ? Or maybe there is another issue ? I did not commit anything yet. Colin promised to look into the issue this weekend based on the mail I sent him. Cheers, FJP pgpExNn3osC3y.pgp Description: PGP signature
[D-I] Switching initrd filesystem (was: mass kernel udeb update and preparations for RC1)
On Friday 22 September 2006 16:39, Grant Grundler wrote: I didn't see anything for parisc (HPPA). I don't know of any problems with initramfs on parisc. but I don't expect any surprises from the kernel on that. Maybe I was not clear enough on this. The original text was: * type of initrd used Some arches have already switched to using initramfs for d-i initrds, other arches are still using cramfs or ext2. Please check if a change could/should be made for your architecture. The default is: config/common:59:INITRD_FS = ext2 $ wcgrep INITRD_FS config/hppa nothing This means that all hppa d-i initrds currently use the default ext2 filesystem. The question was: should hppa be switched to using initramfs instead of ext2 for Debian Installer images? Whether this is possible depends amongst others on what the bootloaders used for different installation methods support. Note that using intramfs has some advantages as can be seen from these changelog entries from Joey for i386/amd64: * Remove root=/dev/ram from syslinux configs, turns out not to be needed for the kernel to find initramfs. * Remove ramdisk_size= and rw settings, also not needed. The same goes for other architectures: alpha: uses default ext2 arm/armeb: most subarches use cramfs ia64: uses cramfs m68k: uses default ext2 mips: uses cramfs mipsel: uses cramfs (except bcm947xx/netboot/firmware.cfg: jffs2) sparc: uses default ext2 i386, amd64, powerpc and s/390 already use initramfs as default. pgpNGBut0ZZHm.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [D-I] mass kernel udeb update and preparations for RC1
(Reply-to set to debian-boot; please only add relevant port if needed.) /me wonders why there have been almost no reactions to this mail The first part is mostly information (though a cool or thanks would be appreciated), but the second part has some issues that need attention. Have D-I porters actually read the mail? Is it useful that I send such mails at all? On Sunday 17 September 2006 14:28, Frans Pop wrote: Dear (d-i) porters, First mass upload of kernel udebs = Today I have uploaded kernel udeb updates to 2.6.17-9 _for all arches_. This is the first time using the 'massbuild' [1] script I wrote recently. Effectively this means that d-i porters won't really have to worry anymore about updating kernel udebs after uploads by the kernel team. Only if the kernel major/minor changes will I request porters to do the upload themselves. For stable releases (including ABI changes) I intend to do these mass builds and do the uploads myself. Hopefully this will help the speed with which kernel udebs are updated and allow you all to spend more time testing d-i ;-) Of course porters are still responsible for maintaining which modules will be included for each arch/flavor. If you have changes between kernel major/minor releases you can either commit them and upload, or commit them as UNRELEASED and they will be automatically included in the next mass build. The massbuild script can be used for single-arch builds too. Its main advantage is that kernel images don't need to be installed and the certainty that the correct kernel version will be used. Feel free to contact me to help you get started. Some comments on today's upload: - I have used the last released version of kernel-wedge and will normally do that in the future too - I have not really checked or tested the udebs [2], so there could be some surprises; please be alert for them - m68k: I had to update the dependencies from kernel-image to linux-image The road to RC1 === We are slowly moving towards RC1. I plan to post an initial planning later this week. As we get closer to Etch, testing the installer for all arches gets to be more important. Any time you can spend on that is very much appreciated. There are some issues that need attention: * type of initrd used Some arches have already switched to using initramfs for d-i initrds, other arches are still using cramfs or ext2. Please check if a change could/should be made for your architecture. * 2.4 support now officially dropped Starting with RC1 d-i will no longer support 2.4 based installations. All arches have been switched now and some cleanup has been started; more cleanup is expected and this may cause unexpected breakage. * support for non-devfs device names Colin Watson has committed a series of changes to make d-i support non-devfs device names. We will be slowly moving away from using devfs names, but the most intrusive work will be postponed until after Etch. Please check for unexpected breakage though. * partman-auto using LVM and crypto partman-auto-lvm now has been available for some time, but is still not available for all arches. LVM support is a prerequisite for partman-auto-crypto support which will be uploaded soon. Note: swap on LVM should be possible now and is even required for partman-auto-crypto. If you would like to add support for it, please see [3]. Feel free to contact me or David Härdeman (Alphix) for help. * mips: keyboard issues We've had a report about a dead keyboard on installation (#382983). This needs to be investigated. * powerpc: oldworld boot problems with recent kernels If there are other architecture specific issues that we should be aware of, please let me know. Cheers, FJP [1] http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/d-i/people/fjp/massbuild?op=filerev=0sc=0 [2] The script does have a number of sanity checks though. [3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/01/msg01054.html pgpE2mA0qAy2j.pgp Description: PGP signature
[D-I] mass kernel udeb update and preparations for RC1
(Reply-to set to debian-boot; please only add relevant port if needed.) Dear (d-i) porters, First mass upload of kernel udebs = Today I have uploaded kernel udeb updates to 2.6.17-9 _for all arches_. This is the first time using the 'massbuild' [1] script I wrote recently. Effectively this means that d-i porters won't really have to worry anymore about updating kernel udebs after uploads by the kernel team. Only if the kernel major/minor changes will I request porters to do the upload themselves. For stable releases (including ABI changes) I intend to do these mass builds and do the uploads myself. Hopefully this will help the speed with which kernel udebs are updated and allow you all to spend more time testing d-i ;-) Of course porters are still responsible for maintaining which modules will be included for each arch/flavor. If you have changes between kernel major/minor releases you can either commit them and upload, or commit them as UNRELEASED and they will be automatically included in the next mass build. The massbuild script can be used for single-arch builds too. Its main advantage is that kernel images don't need to be installed and the certainty that the correct kernel version will be used. Feel free to contact me to help you get started. Some comments on today's upload: - I have used the last released version of kernel-wedge and will normally do that in the future too - I have not really checked or tested the udebs [2], so there could be some surprises; please be alert for them - m68k: I had to update the dependencies from kernel-image to linux-image The road to RC1 === We are slowly moving towards RC1. I plan to post an initial planning later this week. As we get closer to Etch, testing the installer for all arches gets to be more important. Any time you can spend on that is very much appreciated. There are some issues that need attention: * type of initrd used Some arches have already switched to using initramfs for d-i initrds, other arches are still using cramfs or ext2. Please check if a change could/should be made for your architecture. * 2.4 support now officially dropped Starting with RC1 d-i will no longer support 2.4 based installations. All arches have been switched now and some cleanup has been started; more cleanup is expected and this may cause unexpected breakage. * support for non-devfs device names Colin Watson has committed a series of changes to make d-i support non-devfs device names. We will be slowly moving away from using devfs names, but the most intrusive work will be postponed until after Etch. Please check for unexpected breakage though. * partman-auto using LVM and crypto partman-auto-lvm now has been available for some time, but is still not available for all arches. LVM support is a prerequisite for partman-auto-crypto support which will be uploaded soon. Note: swap on LVM should be possible now and is even required for partman-auto-crypto. If you would like to add support for it, please see [3]. Feel free to contact me or David Härdeman (Alphix) for help. * mips: keyboard issues We've had a report about a dead keyboard on installation (#382983). This needs to be investigated. * powerpc: oldworld boot problems with recent kernels If there are other architecture specific issues that we should be aware of, please let me know. Cheers, FJP [1] http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/d-i/people/fjp/massbuild?op=filerev=0sc=0 [2] The script does have a number of sanity checks though. [3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/01/msg01054.html pgpIhP1slMbBp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: powerpc d-i daily ISOs are back and (almost) working
On Saturday 16 September 2006 08:48, Rick Thomas wrote: I tried tonight's businesscard iso on an Apple PowerMac G4. It booted and got into the installer. I walked it through its paces without incident up to the disk partitioning step. I didn't have a free partition to put stuff into at that moment, so I quit there. Great! When I switched to the alt-F2 console, it give me an unexpected error message: Known issue. Fixed in rootskel 1.37. Cheers, FJP pgp7h0LReKYpn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#382129: Is now a good time to revisit installer not booting on OldWorld PowerMac beige G3?
On Saturday 16 September 2006 09:09, Rick Thomas wrote: Is there someone out there who will work with me to get a kernel that boots to run debian-installer on my beige G3 PowerMac (OldWorld) machine? I'd like to see that happen. If not, I think it may be time to withdraw OldWorld PowerMacs from the list of hardware supported by the Debian Installer. Note that as I understand there are also problems booting the kernel outside the installer (i.e. just upgrading an installed system), this does not seem to be a Debian Installer issue, but rather a powerpc kernel or kernel configuration issue. This of course means that the debian-boot team can do very little about it and that you need help from the kernel maintainer. My expectation is that the installer will work just fine again once the kernel issue is solved. See also bug #366620 that is currently being discussed on the debian-kernel list. Cheers, FJP pgpgr98f6vktX.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: powerpc d-i daily ISOs are back but broken. (was: one week out of date. )
On Thursday 14 September 2006 08:41, Sven Luther wrote: /me wonders who is in charge of this breakage right now ? Well, at first glance it seems to me that this could be caused by the change from cramfs to initramfs for which _you_ proposed the patches, so I would normally guess _you_ to deal with the fallout. But that is probably just me blaming the mighty Sven Luther again... Colin will look into it. Seems like a change in debian-cd is required to make things work again. pgpdGLNTCWDgk.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: powerpc d-i daily ISOs are back but broken. (was: one week out of date. )
On Friday 15 September 2006 19:02, Rick Thomas wrote: When should I expect to be able to burn a working businesscard (or netinst) CD? The CD build starting in about 4 hours should have the changes. Not sure if it will be working :-) pgpoGD6EqlGmu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: D-I Beta 3 - release update - please test
(Please reply only to debian-boot; reply-to set accordingly; add other recipients only selectively) A week since the planning was posted, time for an update. Thanks to James, the upload of d-i was processed very quickly. Since then various, mostly minor issues have been identified and resolved. We are now at the stage where final tests before the release can be done for all arches, so if you have some time, please run an installation on your favorite architecture(s). Please file an installation report with your results, or, if you are a d-i team member, update [0] directly. Beta 3 candidate images are available from the following locations: Full CD and DVD images: links weekly snapshot images on [1] Netinst and businesscard CD images: links to daily built images on [1] the daily images now point to the etch_d-i builds [2] Images for other installation methods: http://ftp.nl.debian.org/debian/dists/sid/main/installer-arch/current/images/ Known issues: - S/390 Beta 3 candidate images are broken; will be fixed with next upload - Lowmem settings in Beta 3 images are not yet correct; see below On Monday 24 July 2006 11:52, Frans Pop wrote: One important TODO item is updates to debian-cd, especially for architectures that are dropping 2.4 support in d-i. If your architecture needs such changes, please contact me. Joey and Steve can probably help with the changes where needed. As far as we know all needed updates in debian-cd have been made and successful builds for all types of CD images are now available. A fair amount of changes were needed, so please test CD-based installs. All this does mean that the current lowmem levels need serious review for all architectures. The good news is that memory requirement for a bare install (lowmem level 2) looks be hardly changed. An updated lowmem was uploaded today and will be included in the final upload for Beta 3. The level 1 limits have been increased substantially for all arches. For a few arches level 2 limits have been adjusted as well. We will need to get back to this before the RC releases. Release planning We are mostly running according to schedule. 29Jul Last chance to upload udebs for inclusion in intrds Last expected uploads (localechooser and lowmem) now done. 30Jul Testbuild of weekly images (using d-i images from unstable) Images for all architectures are now available. 1Aug Final upload of d-i images There is one issue that will probably delay the final upload of d-i images. A new upstream version of directfb was uploaded recently which FTBFS on powerpc. This breaks builds of d-i on arches which support the graphical installer. Hopefully this will be resolved soon. 2- 5 Aug Testing This can already start now. 2Aug Last chance to upload udebs not included in initrds 4- 6 Aug Preparation of release notes, errata, etc. 5Aug Migration of d-i to testing 6Aug CD builds 7Aug Release Will slip too depending on when the issue mentioned above is resolved. Cheers, FJP [0] installer/doc/devel/release-checklist [1] http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/ [2] If you need to test sid_d-i images (using daily built d-i images), use http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/daily-builds/etch_d-i/arch-latest/arch/iso-cd/ pgpgZYwlx5Yp3.pgp Description: PGP signature
D-I Beta 3 - release planning
(Please reply only to debian-boot; reply-to set accordingly; add other recipients only selectively) Now that linux-2.6.16 has safely landed in testing a few days ago, we can really start working on the Beta 3 release of D-I. In fact, the migration of most udebs to testing is already in progress. The release preparation page on the wiki [1] is mostly up-to-date with regards to issues and TODO items before the release. The page also lists the changes implemented since Beta 2 which will be used as basis for the release-notes; let me know if you miss items. One important TODO item is updates to debian-cd, especially for architectures that are dropping 2.4 support in d-i. If your architecture needs such changes, please contact me. Joey and Steve can probably help with the changes where needed. D-I memory usage One of the main issues with this release is increased memory usage. For some arches this is proving critical as e.g. 32 or 64 MB boundaries are crossed. Problems have already been seen on arm and m68k. When compared with the Sarge release, there are three main causes: - integration of base-config into first stage (extra udebs use extra memory) - added crypto support in partman (partman-crypto pulls in ~2.5 MB in dependencies; new for Beta 3) After Beta 3 a change is planned for partman-crypto so it will not pull in all its dependencies until it is actually used. - added languages: the templates.dat file has doubled in size and on top of that cdebconf loads the whole file into memory, so the increase hits double (blame bubulle and his endless quest for new languages to support ;-) This is the main culprit. We really need a technical solution to reduce current memory usage and the impact of adding translations, but that will probably be post-Etch. All this does mean that the current lowmem levels need serious review for all architectures. The good news is that memory requirement for a bare install (lowmem level 2) looks be hardly changed. Release planning 24Jul Upload new release of installation-guide 25/26 Jul Most udebs should have migrated to testing 25-29 Jul Implement necessary changes in debian-cd Other TODO items 26Jul First build and upload of d-i, check for unexpected build errors; fix and reupload where needed 27-30 Jul Basic testing using daily images 29Jul Last chance to upload udebs for inclusion in intrds 30Jul Testbuild of weekly images (using d-i images from unstable) 1Aug Final upload of d-i images 2- 5 Aug Testing 2Aug Last chance to upload udebs not included in initrds 4- 6 Aug Preparation of release notes, errata, etc. 5Aug Migration of d-i to testing 6Aug CD builds 7Aug Release There is some slack in this planning, but not much. Some slippage would not be unexpected. A lot depends on the speed with which the BYHAND processing of the d-i uploads can take place and whether build errors occur. Porters (and others) are of course requested to test installations and note the results in [2]. Cheers, FJP [1] http://wiki.debian.org/DebianInstaller/EtchBeta3Prep [2] installer/doc/devel/release-checklist pgpSl20uHRf35.pgp Description: PGP signature
D-I Beta 3 preparation - please update 2.6.16 kernel udebs
(Please reply only to d-boot; Reply-to set accordingly) The latest upload of linux-2.6.16 is now (after today's mirror sync) available for all architectures except arm. As there were important changes, we should rebuild the kernel udebs against 2.6.16-17 before starting the builds of debian-installer for the Beta 3 release. Please do so as soon as possible for your architecture [1]. The preparations for Beta 3 will start as soon as 2.6.16 has migrated to testing which will hopefully be within a couple of days. As the meta packages are already in t-p-u, chances are very good this will finally happen. Shortly after the kernel migration I will also post a more detailed timeline for the release to the d-boot list. If you would like to make changes in debian-cd for Beta3 (for example because 2.4 support was dropped for your arch), doing so shortly after publication of the timeline would be the best time. TIA, FJP [1] I will take care of i386, hppa, sparc and s390 myself. pgpwJXkqtMA57.pgp Description: PGP signature
Debian Installer - Etch Beta 3 release
(Please reply only to d-boot and optionally the relevant port list.) Hello d-i porters, Now that 2.6.16-15 kernels have been uploaded to unstable (using a linux-2.6.16 source package), we can start thinking about the Etch Beta 3 release of D-I. Currently all architectures, except for arm, have built 2.6.16-15 and it should be available from the mirrors tomorrow. Please rebuild and upload your kernel udeb packages against these new kernel images as soon as possible. Note that there have been some recent changes in kernel-wedge which may affect your builds. Note also that 2.6.17 has been uploaded to unstable as well (currently in NEW). Do _not_ build the kernel udebs against that, but against 2.6.16! If you have a chance to run some tests using daily images after the new kernel udebs have been uploaded, that would be very much appreciated. I will post a more detailed release plan as soon as it is clear when the 2.6.16 kernel packages will migrate to testing. Some information about Beta 3 is already available from [1]. If there are any issues for your architecture that we should be aware of, please let us know. Cheers, FJP [1] http://wiki.debian.org/DebianInstaller/EtchBeta3Prep pgpuZPgBrrUVw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [D-I] Preparing for update in stable
This is a follow-up to [1] which proposed a plan for the update of D-I using the latest kernel update for stable in preparation for Sarge r3. Follow-ups please in principle _only_ to d-release and d-boot and maybe to one of the CCed lists if relevant for them. On Friday 21 April 2006 02:01, Frans Pop wrote: In more detail: 1) Upload new i386 kernel udebs for both 2.4 and 2.6 to s-p-u (I've already prepared a set) 2) Get these acked by SRM so they actually show up in s-p-u; s-p-u already has debian-installer sections, I'm not sure if the acceptance queue and approval stuff supports udebs though (aj?) 3) Try a local build of d-i using a sources.list that has both stable and s-p-u in it [1]. After a bit of a wait, stage 2 was completed and I have completed the test in stage 3. Building the installer using s-p-u to get kernel udebs worked as expected and the mini.iso booted with the correct kernel and ran successfully for the first installation steps. Attached are the patches that are needed in the installer to make use of the new kernels. One patch for d-i itself and one for base-installer (for alpha). Patches for kernel udeb packages not included as they are trivial. Some comments on the patch for debian-installer: - AMD64 currently has _no_ kernel updates in their s-p-u Packages file; I understand that Joerg Jaspert needs to work on this for AMD64 to be included in the r3 point release. It will probably also need work by him to get the udebs into the debian-installer section in s-p-u. - The following architectures have no ABI version in the packages names and thus do not need a change in their config files: arm, m68k, mips, mipsel - Powerpc did not have any ABI version in the kernel-image package names, but with this release they have been added for 2.6.8 (not for 2.4.27!). As there also seem to be (new?) meta-packages, base-installer should continue to work. - The other arches all has an ABI change from 2 to 3. Request to d-i porters: please check if the changes for your architecture are complete. So, the next steps are: 4) If this works, poke^Wask porters to upload updated kernels udebs for their arches. We are going to delay step 4 until the kernel security updates that are currently being prepared are available in s-p-u. These do not include an ABI change. 5) Upload new base-installer. 6) Get those uploads acked by SRM. 7) Upload d-i and let the buildds do their stuff. The steps after that are: 8) Prepare necessary updates for debian-cd (if any). 9) Release r3 with very clear communication (debian-announce) that old installer images may break and that preferably new images should be used. Also communicate that availability of CD images may take up to a week. 10) Generate new package lists for debian-cd with new kernel versions. 11) Build and test images for all arches (with porter help). Cheers, FJP [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2006/04/msg00122.html Index: debian/postinst === --- debian/postinst (revision 36545) +++ debian/postinst (working copy) @@ -513,7 +513,7 @@ trykernel=kernel-image-$version-$flavor ;; alpha) - version=2.4.27-2 + version=2.4.27-3 if dmesg | grep -q ^Processors:; then CPUS=`dmesg | grep ^Processors: | cut -d: -f2` else Index: config/powerpc/power3.cfg === --- config/powerpc/power3.cfg (revision 37370) +++ config/powerpc/power3.cfg (working copy) @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ MEDIUM_SUPPORTED = cdrom netboot # The version of the kernel to use. -KERNELVERSION = 2.6.8-power3 +KERNELVERSION = 2.6.8-3-power3 KERNEL_FLAVOUR = di KERNELNAME = vmlinux KERNELIMAGEVERSION = $(KERNELVERSION) Index: config/powerpc/powerpc.cfg === --- config/powerpc/powerpc.cfg (revision 37370) +++ config/powerpc/powerpc.cfg (working copy) @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ MEDIUM_SUPPORTED = cdrom netboot floppy floppy-2.4 hd-media cdrom-minimal netboot-minimal # monolithic # The version of the kernel to use. -KERNELVERSION = 2.6.8-powerpc +KERNELVERSION = 2.6.8-3-powerpc # Targets for 2.4 kernel images will use this version instead. KERNELVERSION_2.4 = 2.4.27-powerpc KERNEL_FLAVOUR = di Index: config/powerpc/power4.cfg === --- config/powerpc/power4.cfg (revision 37370) +++ config/powerpc/power4.cfg (working copy) @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ MEDIUM_SUPPORTED = cdrom netboot # The version of the kernel to use. -KERNELVERSION = 2.6.8-power4 +KERNELVERSION = 2.6.8-3-power4 KERNEL_FLAVOUR = di KERNELNAME = vmlinux KERNELIMAGEVERSION = $(KERNELVERSION) Index: config/alpha.cfg === --- config/alpha.cfg (revision 37370) +++ config/alpha.cfg (working copy) @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ MEDIUM_SUPPORTED = cdrom netboot miniiso # The version
Re: Bug#367149: kbd-chooser: [powerpc] does not detect ADB keyboards
On Sunday 14 May 2006 07:22, Frans Pop wrote: It's currently unsure if the keyboard will work correctly with AT keymaps as well as USB-MAC. I'll test that over the next days. The current daily images now show the AT keymap list. I've tested this on Frank Lichtenheld's Powerbook G4 laptop, and all keys are mapped OK for the German keyboard. The only change from the USB-MAC keymaps is that the apple key no longer works as the modifier key. Instead these can be accessed using Fn-Alt, which can probably be explained as that is probably equivalent to the right-Alt key on regular AT keyboards on i386. AFAICT the options are: - should the AT keymaps be made to support the apple key as modifier key or - should we go back to using the USB-MAC keymaps for powerpc or - should powerpc users learn to use Fn-Alt instead of the apple key Going back to USB-MAC keymaps is possibly not the prefered option because as I understand it the input layer of the 2.6 kernel translates everything to AT, so in principle all architectures should now use AT keymaps. Advice and comments very welcome. Cheers, FJP P.S. Eddy: a test by you too would be very welcome, especially if you can do a full installation and check the full range of characters on the installed system. pgp6Rj9PLQola.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...]
(Original message quoted in full as I'm CCing d-boot and several others. Unfortunately the original message is already quite complex.) On Monday 08 May 2006 11:18, you wrote: it was brought to my attention that you are not reading debian-powerpc, thus I am forwarding my email to you directly. That is correct, mainly as I do not have a powerpc system myself. b) The social and personal side is important. Sven's emails are clearly showing this, but some of the responses by Thomas and others did not reflect this. Yes, but Sven's emails are also only showing one side of the issue. I have not replied to the various threads because I have no interest in prolonging this discussion. The second reason was that there was a mediation going on by the DPL and his second in command and I did not want to interfere in that. My part is: Writing this comment to help the situation. I am also speaking up to support Sven. I believe that he was bit badly treated in the thread. No matter what he did to contribute to the situation, this list has people which are new to the problem. Well, I'm afraid we disagree there and I don't feel that someone who has not followed all that's happened over the last year on the various lists and IRC channels (mostly d-boot and d-kernel, but elsewhere as well) can really judge the rights and wrongs here. Also, this is not really about right or wrong, but about having some fun while working on Debian in general and the installer in particular. Having fun is very important when it comes to a volunteer based project and I'm afraid that Sven was reducing the fun for several core members of the d-i team in a way that has become unacceptable. What could have been done better? If Sven's commit rights have been revoked and he got kicked out, it would be very good to give a reasonable explanation that people can be point people to. The usage of the phrase kicked by Sven, seems to indicate that there was no common position why he left the d-i team. Kicking out Sven from the d-i team had already been discussed twice this year. Eventually we did not have to kick him out as Sven himself resigned from the team. We (I) revoked his commit access mainly because of the broken personal relationships between Sven and other members of the d-i team. IMO it is not good that someone who is not friendly towards a team has commit access to their source repository. In the long run that will only lead to new conflicts. It is much better to have a clean break and maybe resume a normal working relation later on when things have calmed down and people are willing to work together again. Note that it is just as easy to grant commit access as it is to revoke it and I do not exclude the possibility that Sven will be allowed commit access again in the future. There will have to be major changes in his attitude for that to happen though. I should have informed Sven that his commit access had been revoked and I have apologized for failing to do that on other lists. c) I have the feeling of an incomplete picture. Sven, you could have pointed to the reasons why your commit rights have been revoked or that those reasons are missing right on the start. That would have helped me. But also others could help to to get more clear about this. What is the d-i position on not wanting Sven? Are there already explanations somebody could point me to? See above. I'm not willing to repeat all the individual incidents as I feel that would not help the current situation. d) Thomas disregarded Sven's estimation about the diffculties of the d-i efforts and the port. I think this is a mistake on the technical side, Sven has experience and his estimations deserve a sound evaluation and a serious rebuttal. Of course he is not the only competent person, but this does not discredit his estimations. On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 08:21:01AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 02:20:09AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: On Thursday 27 April 2006 13:39, Sven Luther wrote: I revoked your commit rights immediately after your resignation from the team because I felt (and I still do) that things had deteriorated so much that the d-i team was better of without any involvement from you. Frans, this can be okay (without knowing what the probkems are), but .. Also, I did not want any interference in the work of (the) new powerpc porter(s). I fail to see how Sven giving a hand would be that bad (even without commit rights), at the worst case he would need to be ignored which seems worth the risk to me. I have no problems with that and it is part of the proposal from the DPL. The fact that you attempted to fix the cd building breakage without first consulting is proof that that was not unjustified. This might have been a documentable case where clear requirements of d-i commit rights (as I imagine
Re: Wanted: Debian Installer PowerPC porter(s)
The reply below was only sent to the d-boot list; forwarding to d-powerpc as I would guess Brian is not subscribed to d-boot. -- Forwarded Message -- Subject: Re: Debian Installer PowerPC Date: Wednesday 29 March 2006 10:12 From: Geert Stappers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: debian-boot@lists.debian.org On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 10:53:44PM -0800, brian morris wrote: hi - i am getting pretty worn out myself putting Debian on a new world mac for first time lately, a G4. i have thinking now it it is a hassle. i think the installer is over automated and that increase bug problems. for instance. Default boot of D-I activates the knowledge that is in the installer, all the default answers are sane well thought decisions. You can make the decisions yourself by booting expert a) the partitioning scheme and type i was given were not much at all to my liking or need. i was not given any option to correct this only take it or leave it. i was not told that journaling was being turned on. since the partition sizes i was given were not suitable i am force to resize later. Even booted default you get the choice to choose between * Whole disk * Largest free space * Manual partitioning 'Manual partitioning' gives you the freedom to partition as _you_ want. my backup drive here is firewire and i am hearing it won't boot a backup. (the backup i made on scsi with the old world machine wouldn't boot either, but i was able to run parted by interrupting the installer - although it no longer tells you you can i guess you can ... ) That has been reported before and even filled in a bugreport. I don't known which BR number nor it's actual state. That means that it might even be done at least it is on the to do list. on more general : i for one am no windows guy. I trained on unix back in the old days and now i am 50% mac at least. i like macs, and i like unix. i can't stand windows. i really can't. is this worth it. i have done some work with Fink project/ macosx.2 jaguar. obviously it it non-free. i don't like that but i need to do some pre-production sorts of work. by the way fink commander is compared to synaptic much better ! ?suggestions ?? SMILE The Debian-Installer only looks over automated. Please have a closer look at D-I and see why it is appricated by many others. Cheers Geert Stappers --- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wanted: Debian Installer PowerPC porter(s)
Hi all, Sven Luther has recently announced [1] that he will no longer work on PowerPC support in Debian Installer. Colin Watson has already taken over the daily building of d-i images for PowerPC, so working daily builds are available again. Colin is willing to do that long term, but if a new porter should like to take care of that, I'm sure this can be discussed. So what does being a d-i porter involve? Mainly it means taking responsibility for architecture specific issues. Ideally this means: - regular testing of the installer, preferably on different subarches - keeping an eye out for installation reports for powerpc and following up on them (especially if architecture specific issues are reported) - taking care of architecture specific components of the installer, such as kernel udebs, bootloader installers, some partman components - reproducing, tracing and (hopefully) resolving bugs - taking care of daily builds of d-i images Familiarity with used filesystems and booting systems is a definite advantage, but in general work on the installer itself is fairly easy as most of it is scripted, with only some parts written in C. Involvement on any level is welcome. Also, as PowerPC has several fairly distinct subarchitectures, getting involved for a specific subarch is an option. The Debian Installer team is generally seen as open, friendly and helpful. And it has to be as the core team is fairly small but depends on a lot of effort from other developers, porters and translators to keep the installer in working order for all the (sub)architectures it supports. General help on the structure and inner workings of the installer and its components is always available. The last release of the installer (Etch Beta 2) had several PowerPC specific issues [2]. We'd very much like to see these resolved. There are also some open issues for the new graphical version of the installer. If you are interested, please contact us on the debian-boot list. Cheers, Frans Pop [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/03/msg01075.html [2] http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/errata pgpErxgowWSKy.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Wanted: Debian Installer PowerPC porter(s)
On Wednesday 29 March 2006 03:00, Sven Luther wrote: altough seeing as it is a tedious process with little respect from the d-i team ... I have on purpose avoided anything like this in my mail and will not go into any past issues here. I only hope that anyone considering helping out with d-i will make their own judgement based on their own experiences instead of taking Sven's word for this. And yes, the Debian Installer team is very grateful to Sven as well for the hard work he has done for the installer and related packages like parted over the past years. pgpw73e67ozzL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: d-i daily build fails when building initrd (PowerMac7,3)
On Sunday 26 March 2006 23:21, Sven Luther wrote: Ok, but initramfs-tools is there, and is the default now anyway, so it should work. There is clearly a bug in initramfs-tools about this issue, so file a bug report against it, or ask maks on irc (#debian-kernel on irc.oftc.net). No, this is a result of the daily powerpc builds and thus the daily CD builds failing [1]. Because of this the latest netinst CD available has a broken version of base-installer. This _is_ the error that you noticed listed on the DebianInstaller/Today wiki page and which has long been fixed. There is no problem with initramfs-tools, just a problem with the maintainer of the ppc port who is too quick to jump to conclusions again. [1] http://people.debian.org/~joeyh/d-i/build-logs.html pgpy2v1EsNEF4.pgp Description: PGP signature
D-I Etch Beta2 - Status update (4)
I am very happy to announce that the debian-installer images targeted for Beta2 are now in testing (except AMD64) and that daily (etch_d-i) netinst and buisinesscard CD images using them are now available from [1]. These images use the 2.6.15-7 kernel. Note: full CD images are not yet available, but hopefully will be soon. I'll send an update when they are. Links to other images point to Beta2 images as well. Yesterday a relatively minor issue (but important for arm) was discovered in base-installer and we're going to wait for that to reach testing before the final CD builds. That also gives us until Friday for testing. Unless we get reports for serious issues within the next three days, this will be the version of d-i we will go with. Please let us know any test results or record them in SVN [2]. [1] http://www.nl.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/ (Note: other mirrors may not yet have been updated) Beta2 images for AMD64 will probably take 1 or 2 more days. [2] SVN: installer/doc/devel/release-checklist pgpiAyEu2UZUs.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: D-I Etch Beta2 - Status update (4)
(already sent to d-boot) On Tuesday 07 March 2006 13:52, Frans Pop wrote: I am very happy to announce that the debian-installer images targeted for Beta2 are now in testing (except AMD64) and that daily (etch_d-i) netinst and buisinesscard CD images using them are now available from [1]. These images use the 2.6.15-7 kernel. To avoid confusion, the direct link to the correct images is: http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/daily-builds/daily/arch-latest/$arch/iso-cd/ pgpqSKyJEsvpW.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian Installer - boot floppies
On Sunday 26 February 2006 17:00, Brad Boyer wrote: This problem seems pretty simple. The driver floppy.ko is for normal PC style floppy controllers. Apple never did use such a beast in a Mac. The swim3 driver should handle the floppy drives for all PCI Macs that have internal floppy drives. You might check to see if it is already loaded, since the floppy.ko driver said that something else was already using block major 2. I had added this module to the powerpc root floppy because of #345467 (see that bug for full details). I have removed it again a few days back now because of this thread (sorry for not replying here before). The real problem seems to be that no device nodes are created for the powerpc floppy drive which results in the mountfloppy udeb failing. So, my questions would be: - which driver is actually needed in the case of #345467 - is this driver available on the root floppy (built in or module) - if it's modular, is it being loaded - if it's loaded, what are the correct device nodes for it and why are they not being created Also interesting for this may be the two bugs I cloned off #345467: - #352474: Should not ask device question if no candidate devices found - #352475: Does not generate modules.dep if no modules included on root floppy Cheers, FJP pgpRHu30NOIa3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian Installer - boot floppies
On Friday 03 March 2006 23:30, Brad Boyer wrote: Are we still using devfs, or have we moved on to using udev? The installer uses udev for current 2.6 kernels. pgpWTcHN16boB.pgp Description: PGP signature
D-I Etch Beta2 - Status update (3)
I've made a complete mess of CD images for Beta2 so far as the result of a wrong assumption. This means, as some installation reports and comments have shown, that CD images linked from [1] have been broken since last Friday. The good news is that there are now good Beta2 netinst and businesscard CD test images available from [1]. Note that these are not the regular etch_d-i or sid_d-i. The correct link for Beta2 images is currently: http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/beta2-test-build/ Initial tests using these images for i386 and sparc64 have shown no problems. Tests for other arches are very much appreciated [2]. This also means that there are no good full CD images available yet. However, some issues with full CD images have been identified [3] and are being worked on. I've also uploaded the (hopefully final) 20060302 build of debian-installer today which includes the new 2.6.15-7 kernels. It has been accepted for i386 and so should now start building for all arches. We will probably have a small further delay in the Beta2 release, but because no blocking issues have been identified as yet, it looks as if we can keep it minimal. I'm somewhat reluctant to post hard dates ATM. I'm very sorry for any confusion. Please blame it on my inexperience as release manager for d-i and the complexity of the whole process. Cheers, FJP [1] http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/ [2] SVN: installer/doc/devel/release-checklist [3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/03/msg00050.html pgpaacmk0jICc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: wrong info on BootX and initrd kernels in installation manual? [was: Re: Debian install on biege G3]
On Tuesday 06 December 2005 10:13, Hans Ekbrand wrote: I looked up the installation manual on using BootX after first stage installation, and it seems to suppose no initrd, which must fail AFAIK on recent debian kernels. Am I missing something here? Unfortunately the PowerPC specific parts of the manual have never been updated for the Sarge release. This is indicated by the warning at the beginning of the manual. Cheers, FJP pgpbn7UONpSxz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: hfs boot floppy versions
On Saturday 29 October 2005 21:51, Sven Luther wrote: And for each of them report exactly and in details what happened. Please use this template for that: http://www.us.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/report-template pgp87PaqxF91P.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [PATCH] PowerMac install page has outdated information
On Wednesday 26 October 2005 07:40, Shyamal Prasad wrote: Could some one please apply this patch to the PowerMac install page? Committed. Thanks for your patch. Cheers, FJP pgpXCi7QQaVJh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [PATCH} Re: www.d.o: PowerPC installation pages need update
On Saturday 27 August 2005 22:30, Shyamal Prasad wrote: Patrick The model 260 is most definitely a 7043-260 (aka Patrick 43P-260). Based on the thread on debian-powerpc could you please commit this patch? This change should also be made to the install manual too. I can write a bug report with patch if that is the way to go Done, both for the website and the manual. pgpN0hoiCas3m.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [PATCH} Re: www.d.o: PowerPC installation pages need update
On Monday 22 August 2005 01:48, Shyamal Prasad wrote: The patch below updates the powerpc install page to describe the status as in Sarge (i.e. it reflects the installation manual). Nothing controversial here (at least AFAIK ;-) Committed. Could you check the result please? The new version should be online within about 4 hours. Thanks again. FJP pgpb0cEXtVG0P.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#324668: Net Install, no boot from hard drive using BootX.
On Tuesday 23 August 2005 13:14, R Charles Flickinger wrote: Comments/Problems: I cannot locate the files described in section 4.5.1 of the Debian GNU/Linux Installation Guide to be placed in the BootX Linux Kernels folde: Download linux.bin and ramdisk.image.gz from the disks-powerpc/ current/powermac folder, and place them in the Linux Kernels folder. Unfortunately the manual is quite outdated for PowerPC, which is why we have the warning in [1]. I still have some hope that people involved with the Debian PowerPC port will step up and update it. After trying to understand this for all day and night, at least 12 hours, I don't think I want to use this OS, or recommend it to anyone. It's easier to spend money on stuff that just works. The wall I ran into was not being able to locate disks-powerpc/current/ powermac folder either on the ftp site or within the iso image, so I'm stuck and can't proceed on to Chapter 5 of the installation guide. I was successful at one point, watching the kernel try to start, but it kept choking on root= (using BootX) and I tried leaving that blank, entered hd0 and hd1. Nothing worked, I guess, because root couldn't be opened. It is not clear whatI'm supposed to do here to make this work. If you can help, I will try again, but I'm already having doubts about the virtues of working with Linux. Sorry, but maybe you can help me feel better about this. Windows users must dislike Windows an awful lot to want to try fighting with these installs to get Linux running on their hardware. Had no idea it was that bad for them. If you would after all still like to try the images, please take a look at [2] and look for hd-media for your sub architecture. You might even be pleasantly surprised. For CD based installations, please use the different CD images available from [3]. Cheers, FJP [1]http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/powerpc/ [2]http://ftp.debian.org/debian/dists/sarge/main/installer-powerpc/current/images/ [3]http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/debian-installer/ pgpedeZh13EEs.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: www.d.o: PowerPC installation pages need update (was: Some weirdness on debian release sites)
Hello Shyamal, On Monday 15 August 2005 01:47, Shyamal Prasad wrote: Here is a proposed patch to index.wml that you might consider. A changelog would include Thanks very much for this patch; your changes look sane to me. Sorry for not replying earlier, but as the patch was a bit larger I wanted to give the ppc list a chance to comment. As nobody did, I have now committed it. (Thanks for reminding me.) If there is stuff that still looks wrong it's because either (a) I can't tell it is wrong or (b) I don't the correct update. Let's hope that others will review as well. FJP http://www.debian.org/ports/powerpc/inst/install I can try this next - I don't run a lot of old Mac (legacy) hardware or other PowerPC systems, but it should be easy to at least sync with the install manual (at least get the current architectures right!). That would be great, but please keep in mind that the PowerPC installation manual has not really been updated for Sarge either... Thanks, FJP pgpSPW0wnTQGt.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#323182: debian-installer: boot.img for sarge doesn't, on PPC
On Monday 15 August 2005 21:02, Sven Luther wrote: As a result, the floppies present in sarge are entirely broken and will never work. Also the 2.6 floppies, even with miboot present never worked fiably, annd since we are doing away with the 2.4 kernels for etch, this means that the miboot floppy target is going away then. Is the status for the images at http://ftp.debian.org/debian/dists/sarge/main/installer-powerpc/current/images/powerpc/floppy/ and http://ftp.debian.org/debian/dists/sarge/main/installer-powerpc/current/images/powerpc/floppy-2.4/ both the same? Are both broken? Should we mention this in the errata on http://www.debian.org/releases/sarge/debian-installer/index#errata for the Sarge images? Or should we try to get them removed / add a README in the those directories? Should maybe something be added on the powerpc port pages about this issue? Does this also mean that the line for powerpc - oldworld - floppy-2.4 on http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/ports-status should also be listed as broken and in red? Cheers, FJP pgpuGrvrxo8tU.pgp Description: PGP signature
www.d.o: PowerPC installation pages need update (was: Some weirdness on debian release sites)
Hi, Holger Wansing noted on the d-www list (see mail below) that the port pages for PowerPC are in dire need of an update because they and the links on them still refer to Woody and seem not to have been updated for Sarge. - http://www.debian.org/ports/powerpc/index.en.html - http://www.debian.org/ports/powerpc/inst/install Holger refers to one specific item on the first page, but looking at them, I think a more thorough update is needed and that the update needs good knowledge of the port. Could you please review them and either submit patches or update? Cheers, FJP On Thursday 11 August 2005 21:47, Holger Wansing wrote: Hello, today I noticed some weirdness on debian sites (maybe it's all correct as it is?): On http://www.nl.debian.org/ports/powerpc/index.en.html Woody is mentioned as supported distribution, but the link to the installation manual links to Sarge-Manual. --snip Debian PowerPC port was first officially released with Debian GNU/Linux 2.2 (`potato'). Support for PowerPC is maintained in the release 3.0 (`woody'). Please see the release notes and installation manual for more information. --snap pgpWMIvvUswkv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Krypto Modules (for Kmail)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Please don't cross post questions like this. This should have been asked on d-kde only. On Wednesday 15 September 2004 18:01, Roland Wegmann wrote: Which debian package do I have to install so that Kmail is able to verify the signature of emails? I think you're looking for 'cryptplug'. Cheers, FJP -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBSItDgm/Kwh6ICoQRAlRnAJ4kGszvxHoE8nDQeKNdl/3goVjjZACeMn05 /RPn9ACItNNFWxnWMSzbZjU= =2XmF -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: three different sets of daily ISOs -- what's the difference?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sunday 11 July 2004 10:34, Rick Thomas wrote: There are three (seemingly) different sets of daily ISOs at http://cdimage.debian.org/pub/cdimage-testing/daily/powerpc/20040710/ http://cdimage.debian.org/pub/cdimage-testing/sarge_d- i/powerpc/20040710/ http://cdimage.debian.org/pub/cdimage-testing/sid_d-i/powerpc/20040710/ Can anybody explain what the difference is? And which one should I use for testing? Hi Rick, Note: this is a general answer; it could be things are different for PPC. The daily and sarge_d-i images are identical. Currently, your best option for testing is sid_d-i. This is the version that includes the most recent changes (e.g. the new netcfg and languagechooser). During an IRC meeting last week, it was decided that TC1 will be abandoned and the next testing and release candidates will be based on sid_d-i. Cheers, Frans -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFA8Sxlgm/Kwh6ICoQRAkviAJ9m0lu8Uj6lBvST+PoSDtmU2mrqiwCdG/k2 vRZseuk5EgbpTrXi3G0+SeM= =cDVG -END PGP SIGNATURE-
