Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
tags 647672 + pending
Bug #647672 [busybox-udeb] cons25 - xterm
Added tag(s) pending.
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
647672: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=647672
Debian Bug
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
tags 647942 + pending
Bug #647942 [busybox-syslogd] busybox-syslogd is not registered as syslog
service
Added tag(s) pending.
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
647942:
On 01.11.2011 21:24, Robert Millan wrote:
2011/11/1 Michael Tokarev m...@tls.msk.ru:
But whole approach - trying to canonicalize the path this way -
is most likely wrong. It shouldn't be needed for the kernel
since it will do path resolution internally anyway during
mount. And it breaks
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
retitle 647286 Can't create swap on GNU/kFreeBSD
Bug #647286 [busybox-udeb] Can't create swap on ZFS
Bug #647287 [busybox-udeb] swapon no longer available on kfreebsd-amd64
Changed Bug title to 'Can't create swap on GNU/kFreeBSD' from 'Can't
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
tags 637082 + pending
Bug #637082 [busybox] unable to mount ZFS filesystems in legacy mode
Added tag(s) pending.
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
637082:
2011/11/20 Michael Tokarev m...@tls.msk.ru:
(FYI, FreeBSD mount canonicalizes, but it might be gratuitous there too)
I don't see where it does that. It canonicalizes the target directory
argument, that's for sure, but not the spec argument. See
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
tags 647287 + pending
Bug #647287 [busybox-udeb] Can't create swap on GNU/kFreeBSD
Bug #647286 [busybox-udeb] Can't create swap on GNU/kFreeBSD
Ignoring request to alter tags of bug #647287 to the same tags previously set
Ignoring request to alter
2011/11/19 Otavio Salvador ota...@ossystems.com.br:
- rootskel sets TERM=cons25 but only when this variable wasn't set.
This probably has no effect.
I did the change on rootskel but can't upload it as it fails to build
due libklibc fault.
No problem here, I verified that it indeed has no
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
reopen 635370
Bug #635370 {Done: Michael Tokarev m...@tls.msk.ru} [src:busybox] busybox:
integer overflow in expression on big endian
'reopen' may be inappropriate when a bug has been closed with a version;
you may need to use 'found' to remove
reopen 635370
thanks
For the fun out of it all. The original code, even if
gcc produced a warning, worked correctly. Several attempts
to silence this warning produced worse or incorrect _code_.
I'm reverting the fix and marking this bug as not fixed.
The issue here is that enums in C are
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
tags 619114 + pending
Bug #619114 [udhcpc] /usr/share/udhcpc/default.script has no override in /etc
Added tag(s) pending.
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
619114:
On 20.11.2011 15:43, Robert Millan wrote:
[]
- busybox sets TERM=cons25
Changed; will ask for it to be uploaded soon.
I plan to upload fixed busybox today (with fixes for other
kFreeBSD-related issues too).
Thanks,
/mjt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
On 20.11.2011 17:31, Robert Millan wrote:
Cool. Btw, there's also #646961 (with patch available).
Yeah I looked at it today too, but have some.. issues with it.
For which I installed kFreeBSD system in kvm again.
The proposed change:
- /sbin/route add default gw $i dev
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 08:50:20AM -0500, John D. Hendrickson and Sara Darnell
wrote:
How is alteration from .gz to .xz going to do anything but create new upgrade
or boot issues?
what bug number is it?
Could you please mind your own business instead of spamming people?
udebs are the realm
How is alteration from .gz to .xz going to do anything but create new upgrade
or boot issues?
what bug number is it?
-
Is lzh/ma xz built already built-in (to kernel or glibs)? What if kernel or libs changes or isn't
yet installed? Use bin?
Won't this mean all
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
tags 624852 + pending
Bug #624852 [busybox-static] busybox: please enable taskset applet
Added tag(s) pending.
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
624852:
2011/11/20 Michael Tokarev m...@tls.msk.ru:
So maybe freebsd route can recognize and skip this gw
keyword between source and destination?
I can't tell beforehand. I'll discuss this with upstream.
Or alternatively, maybe it is better to teach linux route
to not require this gw (it gives
tags 502035 + wontfix
thanks
[Replying to rather old bugreport...]
On 13.10.2008 01:34, Andrew Deason wrote:
Package: busybox-udeb
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch d-i
I was about to file a wishlist bug against partman with a patch for
using LABEL= mounting in /etc/fstab during the install
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
tags 502035 + wontfix
Bug #502035 [busybox-udeb] busybox-udeb: Add support for LABEL= mounting
Added tag(s) wontfix.
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
502035:
Your message dated Sun, 20 Nov 2011 15:17:17 +
with message-id e1rs98v-ez...@franck.debian.org
and subject line Bug#634076: fixed in cdebconf 0.158
has caused the Debian Bug report #634076,
regarding cdebconf: [text] Should use commas to separate choices for proper
speech synthesis
to be
cdebconf_0.158_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
cdebconf_0.158.dsc
cdebconf_0.158.tar.gz
cdebconf-priority_0.158_all.udeb
cdebconf_0.158_amd64.deb
cdebconf-gtk_0.158_amd64.deb
libdebconfclient0_0.158_amd64.deb
We believe that the bug you reported is now fixed; the following
package(s) have been removed from unstable:
acpi-modules-3.0.0-1-amd64-di | 1.83 | amd64
ata-modules-3.0.0-1-amd64-di | 1.83 | amd64
btrfs-modules-3.0.0-1-amd64-di | 1.83 | amd64
cdrom-core-modules-3.0.0-1-amd64-di
We believe that the bug you reported is now fixed; the following
package(s) have been removed from unstable:
ata-modules-3.0.0-1-iop32x-di | 1.63 | armel
btrfs-modules-3.0.0-1-iop32x-di | 1.63 | armel
btrfs-modules-3.0.0-1-kirkwood-di | 1.63 | armel
We believe that the bug you reported is now fixed; the following
package(s) have been removed from unstable:
acpi-modules-3.0.0-1-486-di | 1.106 | i386
acpi-modules-3.0.0-1-686-pae-di | 1.106 | i386
ata-modules-3.0.0-1-486-di | 1.106 | i386
ata-modules-3.0.0-1-686-pae-di |
We believe that the bug you reported is now fixed; the following
package(s) have been removed from unstable:
ata-modules-3.0.0-1-itanium-di | 1.72 | ia64
btrfs-modules-3.0.0-1-itanium-di | 1.72 | ia64
cdrom-core-modules-3.0.0-1-itanium-di | 1.72 | ia64
We believe that the bug you reported is now fixed; the following
package(s) have been removed from unstable:
core-modules-3.0.0-1-s390x-di | 0.66 | s390
crypto-dm-modules-3.0.0-1-s390x-di | 0.66 | s390
crypto-modules-3.0.0-1-s390x-di | 0.66 | s390
We believe that the bug you reported is now fixed; the following
package(s) have been removed from unstable:
affs-modules-3.0.0-1-powerpc-di | 1.84 | powerpc
affs-modules-3.0.0-1-powerpc64-di | 1.84 | powerpc
ata-modules-3.0.0-1-powerpc-di | 1.84 | powerpc
Accepted:
cdebconf-gtk-udeb_0.158_amd64.udeb
to main/c/cdebconf/cdebconf-gtk-udeb_0.158_amd64.udeb
cdebconf-gtk_0.158_amd64.deb
to main/c/cdebconf/cdebconf-gtk_0.158_amd64.deb
cdebconf-newt-udeb_0.158_amd64.udeb
to main/c/cdebconf/cdebconf-newt-udeb_0.158_amd64.udeb
We believe that the bug you reported is now fixed; the following
package(s) have been removed from unstable:
ata-modules-3.0.0-1-sparc64-di | 1.72 | sparc
btrfs-modules-3.0.0-1-sparc64-di | 1.72 | sparc
cdrom-core-modules-3.0.0-1-sparc64-di | 1.72 | sparc
We believe that the bug you reported is now fixed; the following
package(s) have been removed from unstable:
btrfs-modules-3.0.0-1-4kc-malta-di | 1.39 | mipsel
btrfs-modules-3.0.0-1-loongson-2f-di | 1.39 | mipsel
btrfs-modules-3.0.0-1-r5k-cobalt-di | 1.39 | mipsel
We believe that the bug you reported is now fixed; the following
package(s) have been removed from unstable:
btrfs-modules-3.0.0-1-4kc-malta-di | 1.39 | mips
btrfs-modules-3.0.0-1-r4k-ip22-di | 1.39 | mips
btrfs-modules-3.0.0-1-r5k-ip32-di | 1.39 | mips
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 21:34, Luca Falavigna dktrkr...@debian.org wrote:
Il 19/11/2011 20:15, Otavio Salvador ha scritto:
Yes, they can be removed.
Cool, I'll file RM bugs for the following packages, then:
* linux-kernel-di-amd64-2.6
* linux-kernel-di-armel-2.6
* linux-kernel-di-i386-2.6
Debian installer build overview
---
Failed or old builds:
* FAILED BUILD: kfreebsd-amd64 Nov 21 00:12 buildd@fano build_cdrom
http://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/kfreebsd-amd64/daily/build_cdrom.log
* FAILED BUILD: kfreebsd-amd64 Nov 21 00:13
33 matches
Mail list logo
