On Sunday 14 May 2006 11:44, Geert Stappers wrote:
Keep the current d-i images as they exist
and add extra images for g-i.
That would lead to an explosion of the number of images though which is
not what we or the debian-cd team wants.
The full CD will most likely match the netinst-gui.iso.
On Sunday 14 May 2006 12:18, Sven Luther wrote:
It is usefull to keep those images relatively small, but given their
current size, growing from 250 to 300 MB or whatever it is, will
probably pass un-noticed.
Right. That issue does not really apply to ppc as, as you say, the
businesscard and
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 07:34:27AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Monday 15 May 2006 23:40, Sven Luther wrote:
That said, another important point is, will we be using a separate
gtk-dfb 2.9/2.10 package set, or will we be using the main gtk debian
package ? In this second case, are the
On Monday 15 May 2006 15:32, Davide Viti wrote:
I did one hour ago or so and it booted fine
Hmm. I'm guessing that you've tried the mini.iso, and not one of the
larger images as they indeed were completely broken. Will hopefully be
fixed with the next build.
pgpmBoqIwYQSc.pgp
Description:
On Monday 15 May 2006 14:33, Sven Luther wrote:
(and we can't probably change it without another 6+ month flamewar with
Ethan Benson),
This comment was unnecessary. Please keep old gripes out of mailing list
discussions. Especially as everybody is already aware of them.
For all those
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 07:34:27AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
That said, another important point is, will we be using a separate
gtk-dfb 2.9/2.10 package set, or will we be using the main gtk debian
package ? In this second case, are the gtk-gnome folk ready to move to
gtk 2.10 for etch ?
On Sunday 14 May 2006 21:59, David Härdeman wrote:
The only known bug so far is that the /target filesystem isn't cleanly
unmounted when it's on an encrypted partition. Any suggestions on where
to start looking?
Well, the installer just runs 'umount -a' in prebaseconfig's [1] 95umount
script.
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 12:17:10AM +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-15 at 23:53 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 04:01:17PM +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-15 at 15:28 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
What framebuffer is used ? atyfb probably ?
On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 07:29:39PM -0400, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
On Thu, 11 May 2006 22:28:39 +0200
Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ ... ]
If you would like commit access to the d-i SVN repository, please let
us know your alioth account name.
alioth is http://alioth.debian.org
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 08:11, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Eh, if you want to do gtk-dfb, you can't. The choice between using the
DirectFB backend or the X11 backend has to be done at compile time. Or
am I missing something?
No, you're not. This is an issue and it's going to take some advanced
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 08:05:08AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Sunday 14 May 2006 11:44, Geert Stappers wrote:
Keep the current d-i images as they exist
and add extra images for g-i.
That would lead to an explosion of the number of images though which is
not what we or the debian-cd team
On 5/16/06, Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For all those reasons, i would build the netboot g-i images, it costs
not much to build them, and since they are not going to be included on
the isos ...
I will leave the decision on whether or not to include netboot images to
Colin. Technically
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 08:09:36AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Sunday 14 May 2006 12:18, Sven Luther wrote:
It is usefull to keep those images relatively small, but given their
current size, growing from 250 to 300 MB or whatever it is, will
probably pass un-noticed.
Right. That issue
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 01:11:12AM +0300, Eddy Petrişor wrote:
So, will you disable them, or should I try to test your images, too ?
(it seems to me that there shouldn't be differences, but you'll never
know :)
There shouldn't be a difference, but if you have time, it doesn't cost
anything to
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 08:12:04AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Monday 15 May 2006 15:32, Davide Viti wrote:
I did one hour ago or so and it booted fine
Hmm. I'm guessing that you've tried the mini.iso, and not one of the
larger images as they indeed were completely broken. Will hopefully be
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 12:24:55AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 00:11, Eddy Petrişor wrote:
So, will you disable them, or should I try to test your images, too ?
(it seems to me that there shouldn't be differences, but you'll never
know :)
They should preferably be
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 08:17:42AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Monday 15 May 2006 14:33, Sven Luther wrote:
(and we can't probably change it without another 6+ month flamewar with
Ethan Benson),
This comment was unnecessary. Please keep old gripes out of mailing list
discussions.
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 08:33:09AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 08:05:08AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Sunday 14 May 2006 11:44, Geert Stappers wrote:
Keep the current d-i images as they exist
and add extra images for g-i.
That would lead to an explosion of the
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 07:34:27AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Monday 15 May 2006 23:40, Sven Luther wrote:
Another aspect not to forget about this too. We have made considerable
effort to bring the directfb code to gtk 2.9+. We have involved
external folk outside of d-i to help us and make
On 5/16/06, Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 08:11, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Eh, if you want to do gtk-dfb, you can't. The choice between using the
DirectFB backend or the X11 backend has to be done at compile time. Or
am I missing something?
No, you're not. This is an
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 06:11:53AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
Hi,
I just want to point out that we have at Tuesday, 10.05 in the Hacklab
the stable release BoF, which will give us a chance to discuss that
topic. (Thanks to Frans for pointing out how usefull such a pointer
would be. :)
At
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 09:40, Eddy Petrişor wrote:
Why are you hanging always on the idea that we should use released
versions? For testing and (in some cases) for the final product a CVS
snapshot is more than good. We need testing if we desire the G-I to be
ready for etch, I think you agree,
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 09:37, you wrote:
I disagree, they is a lot of changes and new features for 2.10 and a
random 2.9 snapshot is not something we are wanting to ship with a
stable Debian
Thank you for this quick and sane reply.
pgpicDYPrUyAW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, 2006-05-16 at 08:23 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 12:17:10AM +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
0 OFfb ATY,264LTP
1 OFfb ATY,264LTP
Ok, this is atyfb, and you probably have a rage something chip in there. I
wonder about the two fbdevs, but i suppose this is one
On 5/16/06, Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 09:40, Eddy Petrişor wrote:
Why are you hanging always on the idea that we should use released
versions? For testing and (in some cases) for the final product a CVS
snapshot is more than good. We need testing if we desire
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 09:53:53AM +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
On Tue, 2006-05-16 at 08:23 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 12:17:10AM +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
0 OFfb ATY,264LTP
1 OFfb ATY,264LTP
Ok, this is atyfb, and you probably have a rage something
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 09:59, Eddy Petrişor wrote:
I have addressed the concerns regading this point since the
minimeeting held some time ago[1] by proposing a solution that would
not interfere with the present packages.
See the reply by the Gnome maintainer for why this is not an option.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes. I already explained this multiple times. An IP address is not
*needed* on the ethernet interface, but always configuring one is
simpler and may prevent problems later.
If I am going to do that on the connection from my provider, I will
have my contract termitated
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 09:09, Sven Luther wrote:
It is scheduled for release during may, which may or not be delayed a
bit. This is way this is an important point to get feedaback from the
release team and from the gtk-gnome team now. I am CCing them on this.
As you are not the d-i or g-i
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 09:37:36AM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
Le mardi 16 mai 2006 à 09:09 +0200, Sven Luther a écrit :
If we decide that 2.9+ and 2.10 is the way to go for etch, then we should be
pro-active for this, and start experimenting, and even making them the
default
NOW.
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 09:48:30AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 09:09, Sven Luther wrote:
It is scheduled for release during may, which may or not be delayed a
bit. This is way this is an important point to get feedaback from the
release team and from the gtk-gnome team
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 10:07:46AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 09:59, Eddy Petrişor wrote:
I have addressed the concerns regading this point since the
minimeeting held some time ago[1] by proposing a solution that would
not interfere with the present packages.
See the
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 08:36:56AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 08:11, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Eh, if you want to do gtk-dfb, you can't. The choice between using the
DirectFB backend or the X11 backend has to be done at compile time. Or
am I missing something?
No, you're
Hi Frans,
(I am answering this email in the same group,
as it also addresses some of the problems of various mailinglists
and has its home on debian-powerpc.)
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 06:22:29PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Monday 08 May 2006 11:18, you wrote:
it was brought to my attention
On 5/16/06, Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 09:37, you wrote:
I disagree, they is a lot of changes and new features for 2.10 and a
random 2.9 snapshot is not something we are wanting to ship with a
stable Debian
Thank you for this quick and sane reply.
Please
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 10:07:45AM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
Le mardi 16 mai 2006 à 09:50 +0200, Sven Luther a écrit :
Sebastien, do you know if the development 2.9 gtk packages will be uploaded
to
experimental or something such ? If so, would it be meaningful to have those
Le mardi 16 mai 2006 à 09:09 +0200, Sven Luther a écrit :
If we decide that 2.9+ and 2.10 is the way to go for etch, then we should be
pro-active for this, and start experimenting, and even making them the default
NOW.
GTK 2.9 is GNOME 2.16 material, lot of packages Depends on GTK and
making
Sebastien Bacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Le mardi 16 mai 2006 à 09:09 +0200, Sven Luther a écrit :
It is scheduled for release during may, which may or not be delayed a bit.
This is way this is an important point to get feedaback from the release team
and from the gtk-gnome team now. I am
Le mardi 16 mai 2006 à 09:50 +0200, Sven Luther a écrit :
Sebastien, do you know if the development 2.9 gtk packages will be uploaded to
experimental or something such ? If so, would it be meaningful to have those
packages also include the build of the .udebs, and upload to unstable a
version
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 10:58:52AM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
Le mardi 16 mai 2006 à 10:23 +0200, Sven Luther a écrit :
Ok, but if someone else would be packaging those to produce .udebs, you have
no particular objection to uploading .debs to experimental at the same time
?
Are
Hi,
sorry, I have not received your reply sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED], should
have been sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The needed modules should be mptbase and mptscsih, they are present,
in /lib/modules... but not loaded, loading them manually and restarting
the partman does not help.
lspci does not
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 11:45:02AM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
Le mardi 16 mai 2006 à 11:07 +0200, Sven Luther a écrit :
1) you did comment on gtk 2.9+ for etch as the main gtk package, but does
this advice also hold in a 2.0.x vs 2.9+ d-i gtk-dfb scenario ?
As written previously
hello,
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 06:11:53AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
I just want to point out that we have at Tuesday, 10.05 in the Hacklab
the stable release BoF, which will give us a chance to discuss that
topic. (Thanks to Frans for pointing out how usefull such a pointer
would be. :)
Le mardi 16 mai 2006 à 10:23 +0200, Sven Luther a écrit :
Ok, but if someone else would be packaging those to produce .udebs, you have
no particular objection to uploading .debs to experimental at the same time ?
Are you saying you want to hijack GTK now?
Sebastien Bacher
--
To
Hi folks
I got a request from Colin if it is possible to add udeb selection per
frontend. I had to decline this as it will break the ABI.
As I have some pending changes which does that also, I hereby propose
the following which will make it possible to change the ABI of the
Packages reading part
On 5/16/06, Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes. I already explained this multiple times. An IP address is not
*needed* on the ethernet interface, but always configuring one is
simpler and may prevent problems later.
If I am going to do that on the connection
On 5/16/06, Sebastien Bacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le mardi 16 mai 2006 à 09:50 +0200, Sven Luther a écrit :
Sebastien, do you know if the development 2.9 gtk packages will be uploaded to
experimental or something such ? If so, would it be meaningful to have those
packages also include
Le mardi 16 mai 2006 à 11:07 +0200, Sven Luther a écrit :
1) you did comment on gtk 2.9+ for etch as the main gtk package, but does
this advice also hold in a 2.0.x vs 2.9+ d-i gtk-dfb scenario ?
As written previously upstream changed the ABI number so updating to GTK
2.9 would require
As you are not the d-i or g-i release manager and currently not even on
the d-i team, it is _not_ your place to do this.
I object slightly (but hopefully we'll find time to discuss these
issues live). This has not been my reading of Sven's mails in that
particular thread.
IMHO, the
On May 16, Eddy Petri??or [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I am going to do that on the connection from my provider, I will
have my contract termitated in a second because I am not allowed to
use other IPs in their network than the ones given by thier servers,
and believe me, there is NO
On 5/16/06, Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 16, Eddy Petri??or [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I am going to do that on the connection from my provider, I will
have my contract termitated in a second because I am not allowed to
use other IPs in their network than the ones given by
Some thoughts by someone else than me about this issue :
Vitality
The most important thing that I think would benefit Debian is increasing its
tempo. We've been slow in a lot of things, from releasing, to getting
updates in, to processing applications from prospective developers, to
Hi
If i'm not wrong, current GTKDFB 2.0.9 libraries (binary .udeb and -
dev .deb) are built from a completly different source package than
regular GTKX libraries (currently 2.8.xx in unstable, IIRC).
Standard GTK libraries used in the Debian are built with the X
frontend, while GTK libraries
$ more /proc/fb
0 ATI Radeon Lf
0 OFfb ATY,264LTP
1 OFfb ATY,264LTP
Might be the LCD is actually on the second one?
Michael
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Package: installation-reports
Severity: important
-- Package-specific info:
Boot method: usb stick
Image version:
http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/etch_di_beta2/i386/iso-cd/debian-testing-i386-businesscard.iso
Date: Date and time of the install
Machine: IBM xseries 206m
Partitions: df -Tl
Le mardi 16 mai 2006 à 11:45 +0200, Sebastien Bacher a écrit :
Le mardi 16 mai 2006 à 11:07 +0200, Sven Luther a écrit :
1) you did comment on gtk 2.9+ for etch as the main gtk package, but does
this advice also hold in a 2.0.x vs 2.9+ d-i gtk-dfb scenario ?
As written previously
Package: libgtk+2.0-directfb-dev
Version: 2.0.9.2-13
Severity: important
*** Please type your report below this line ***
The libgtk+2.0-directfb-dev package indirectly conflicts with
libgtk+2.0-directfb0.
The problem is that libgtk+2.0-directfb0 directly depends on
libdirectfb-0.9-22,
while
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 14:33, Eddy Petrişor wrote:
In order to have that ran at some point after the syetm is configured,
some postinst from the menu, directly or indirectly will have to do
the copying. Having another entry in the d-i menu means having another
udeb (only one postinst/udeb is
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 10:25, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
My point really was that it's silly to drop the graphical installer as
a target for Etch if you need to compile differently for gtk-dfb
anyway; so if the regular gtk2 packages aren't at the correct version,
having a different gtk2 source
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 06:54:55AM +0200, Noèl Köthe wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 14.05.2006, 09:10 +1000 schrieb Andrew Pollock:
Hello Andrew,
we had the D-I BoF here at Debconf6 some hours ago.
1. the D-I will use 2 but 3 will be install on the system which is
installed
Sounds
On Tue, 2006-05-16 at 09:58 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
My diagnostic here, is that g-i makes some assumptions that are wrong
on
powerpc. Most probably it tries to load the vesafb module, but since
the above
is builtin in the powerpc kernel, that test fails, obviously.
Furthermore,
vesafb is
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
severity 367499 normal
Bug#367499: installation-reports: Not recognize adaptec aic-9405w sas/sata
controller
Severity set to `normal' from `important'
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking
severity 367499 normal
thanks
The system doesn't recognize the adaptec aic-9405w SATA/SAS
controller. I found the gpl drivers
at
http://www-307.ibm.com/pc/support/site.wss/document.do?lndocid=MIGR-62897
but I'm not able to use them in a useful way other than report to you
...
That
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 12:16:38PM +0200, Michael Schmitz wrote:
$ more /proc/fb
0 ATI Radeon Lf
0 OFfb ATY,264LTP
1 OFfb ATY,264LTP
Might be the LCD is actually on the second one?
This might be the reason it fails, if it is so. But i am not sure, since the
dmesg output mentioned
On 5/16/06, Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 14:33, Eddy Petrişor wrote:
In order to have that ran at some point after the syetm is configured,
some postinst from the menu, directly or indirectly will have to do
the copying. Having another entry in the d-i menu means
On 5/16/06, Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 10:25, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
My point really was that it's silly to drop the graphical installer as
a target for Etch if you need to compile differently for gtk-dfb
anyway; so if the regular gtk2 packages aren't at the
On 5/16/06, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le mardi 16 mai 2006 à 11:45 +0200, Sebastien Bacher a écrit :
Le mardi 16 mai 2006 à 11:07 +0200, Sven Luther a écrit :
1) you did comment on gtk 2.9+ for etch as the main gtk package, but does
this advice also hold in a 2.0.x vs
Package: anna
Version: 1.2.3
Severity: wishlist
As requested by Frans in the stable BOF @ debconf6, the message displayed to
the user when the kernel ABI of the downloaded module udebs doesn't match
the running kernel should suggest downloading an updated CD.
-- System Information:
Debian
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 05:33:24PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 12:16:38PM +0200, Michael Schmitz wrote:
$ more /proc/fb
0 ATI Radeon Lf
0 OFfb ATY,264LTP
1 OFfb ATY,264LTP
Might be the LCD is actually on the second one?
This might be the reason it
On Tue, 2006-05-16 at 17:52 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 05:33:24PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 12:16:38PM +0200, Michael Schmitz wrote:
$ more /proc/fb
0 ATI Radeon Lf
0 OFfb ATY,264LTP
1 OFfb ATY,264LTP
Might be the LCD
* maximilian attems ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060516 11:09]:
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 06:11:53AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
I just want to point out that we have at Tuesday, 10.05 in the Hacklab
the stable release BoF, which will give us a chance to discuss that
topic. (Thanks to Frans for
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 05:06:03PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 10:25, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
My point really was that it's silly to drop the graphical installer as
a target for Etch if you need to compile differently for gtk-dfb
anyway; so if the regular gtk2 packages
Hi,
Even though I prefer the textual installer or even no installers ;) see
http://www.debuntu.org/2006/05/14/51-how-to-installing-debian-etch-from-a-running-debian-based-system/
I reckon graphical as default is best.
Why? Just because awared user will instantly look toward FXs menus, but
a
Thank you for your message and the link to the howto; I hope it will be
useful to some people.
Installing Debian using debootstrap is also documented in the Installation
Guide:
http://d-i.alioth.debian.org/manual/en.i386/apds03.html
Hi,
Arf, I could not find that link anymore from the
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 10:52:19AM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
Bastian Blank wrote:
* Support for udebs per frontend.
Not sure what this means exactly..
| Kamion waldi: how would I go about adding a parameter to
di_system_packages_resolve_dependencies_mark_anna without breaking libd-i's ABI?
|
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 19:14, chantra wrote:
Arf, I could not find that link anymore from the debian frontpage,
that's why I went on that quest ;).
From the from page, try the link to Installation manual under the
Documentation heading ;-)
pgph5OVxx5mdJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
From the from page, try the link to Installation manual under the
Documentation heading ;-)
Arf, I didn't scroll down enough :p .
But still, this bit is missing now:
C.4.4.4.Configure Timezone, Users, and APT
Set your timezone, add a normal user, and choose your apt
sources by
Your message dated Tue, 16 May 2006 20:13:19 +0200
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#367505: Indirect dependency conflict between
libgtk+2.0-directfb-dev and libgtk+2.0-directfb0
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the
On 5/16/06, Sebastien Bacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le mardi 16 mai 2006 à 18:42 +0300, Eddy Petrişor a écrit :
So the questions are:
- Is it OK for the GTK+GNOME team to have D-I people (and maybe with
the help of some gtk/gnome people) build some udebs for GTK
_with_the_DFB_ backend, as
Le mardi 16 mai 2006 à 18:42 +0300, Eddy Petrişor a écrit :
So the questions are:
- Is it OK for the GTK+GNOME team to have D-I people (and maybe with
the help of some gtk/gnome people) build some udebs for GTK
_with_the_DFB_ backend, as it is now for the 2.0.9 version?
Sure, no objection
Eddy Petrişor wrote:
On 5/16/06, Sebastien Bacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le mardi 16 mai 2006 à 18:42 +0300, Eddy Petrişor a écrit :
So the questions are:
- Is it OK for the GTK+GNOME team to have D-I people (and maybe with
the help of some gtk/gnome people) build some udebs for GTK
Package: debian-installer
Version: Sarge ?
The netinst page (http://www.us.debian.org/distrib/netinst) claims:
This sort of network installation process requires either an analogue
PPP dialup connection to your Internet provider, or Internet access via
Ethernet (possibly using a PCMCIA
On 5/16/06, Attilio Fiandrotti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, if i understand correctly, there should be definitely no problems in
moving to more recent GTKDFB libraries, right (no conflicts with GTKX
pavkages) ? do we all agree about moving to 2.9.0 (needs minor patches)
or CVS snapshot dated
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 07:36:48PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
Le mardi 16 mai 2006 à 18:42 +0300, Eddy Petrişor a écrit :
So the questions are:
- Is it OK for the GTK+GNOME team to have D-I people (and maybe with
the help of some gtk/gnome people) build some udebs for GTK
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 09:22:22AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 09:01, Geert Stappers wrote:
Fool^WFull switch to g-i will kill serial line and ssh installs.
Not so. The installer detects serial line installs and does not enable the
framebuffer and thus not the graphical
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 19:59, Bastian Blank wrote:
I'll implement that after the higher priority tasks (aka partman) are
sorted out. As there was no response yes, I don't think anyone wants to
help.
Speaking only for myself of course, I still have your message on my TODO
list. However, it is
FYI: The status of the tasksel source package
in Debian's testing distribution has changed.
Previous version: 2.43
Current version: 2.44
--
This email is automatically generated; [EMAIL PROTECTED] is responsible.
See http://people.debian.org/~henning/trille/ for more information.
--
To
Le mardi 16 mai 2006 à 21:55 +0200, Attilio Fiandrotti a écrit :
So, if i understand correctly, there should be definitely no problems in
moving to more recent GTKDFB libraries, right (no conflicts with GTKX
pavkages) ? do we all agree about moving to 2.9.0 (needs minor patches)
or CVS
To discuss this subject, I've still wanted to set up a discussion with at
least Marco, you, Joey and Colin, but for different reasons have not
gotten around to that.
As I'll be on holiday for a few weeks after Debconf, let me at least list
the issues that I've had in mind and that should be
On May 17, Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- We should like to keep support for devfs and regular device names in
the installer; loosing that would mean no support for 2.2/2.4 installs
(although those are likely to be dropped anyway) and no support for
installs of Sarge and I think
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
reopen 328498
Bug#328498: switch to cdebconf as default
'reopen' is deprecated when a bug has been closed with a version;
use 'found' or 'submitter' as appropriate instead.
Bug reopened, originator not changed.
--
Stopping processing here.
Please
using the debian-testing-amd64-netinst.iso from may 13
Wiped disk and tried this one again -
Dropped down into shell just before the grub install and
chroot /target
added backports to sources.list
apt-get update
apt-get install linux-image-2.6.15-1-amd64-k8
complained about hotplug - and
Eddy Petrişor wrote:
On 5/16/06, Attilio Fiandrotti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, if i understand correctly, there should be definitely no problems in
moving to more recent GTKDFB libraries, right (no conflicts with GTKX
pavkages) ? do we all agree about moving to 2.9.0 (needs minor patches)
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 11:02:43PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 19:59, Bastian Blank wrote:
I'll implement that after the higher priority tasks (aka partman) are
sorted out. As there was no response yes, I don't think anyone wants to
help.
Speaking only for myself of
Hi all,
I'll be giving a workshop explaining the technical side of the installer
on Thursday 18-5 from 20:20 - 22:00 UTC (if my timezone calculations are
correct).
Main subjects are:
- What happens when the installer runs:
- installation methods
- booting
- the menu and running
At Debconf Joey Hess and I have integrated support for the graphical
installer into the main build system for d-i. For now the support is for
i386 only, but amd64 [1] and powerpc will follow very soon.
This means that the daily built images [2] of the installer now include an
option to boot
Kimberley Crombie [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
how do imake a mirror
aeh, sorry for the last mail. I ment:
apt-get install reprepro
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Monday 08 May 2006 09:16, Bastian Blank wrote:
I fixed the hardware configuration for s390 yesterday. It works
flawless now except that it needs some further indicators that it did
something.
Great.
Now it is time to switch to partman as partconf is completely out of
order.
Yes, it
On Monday 15 May 2006 15:01, Bastian Blank wrote:
/dev/disk/by-path (usable both for booting and in fstab) or
/dev/disk/by-{id,uuid} (only appropritate in fstab).
How can I get parted_server to use this paths? Must I issue a CLOSE
with the old device and an OPEN with the correct one? Or may
On Monday 15 May 2006 14:45, Bastian Blank wrote:
partman-partitioning/storage_device/label/do_option already contains a
selection for msdos/gpt. Should I just extend that or push the whole
logic out?
I would guess extending it for s/390 is best.
pgpP8NhdFb0MH.pgp
Description: PGP signature
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
