Debian installer build overview
---
Failed or old builds:
* OLD BUILD:armel May 08 08:10 buildd@ancina build_iop32x_netboot
http://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/armel/daily/build_iop32x_netboot.log
* OLD BUILD:armel May 08 08:13 buildd@ancina
Accepted:
clock-setup_0.111.dsc
to main/c/clock-setup/clock-setup_0.111.dsc
clock-setup_0.111.tar.gz
to main/c/clock-setup/clock-setup_0.111.tar.gz
clock-setup_0.111_i386.udeb
to main/c/clock-setup/clock-setup_0.111_i386.udeb
Changes:
clock-setup (0.111) unstable; urgency=low
.
[ Samu
Your message dated Mon, 21 May 2012 21:24:01 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#660093: fixed in clock-setup 0.111
has caused the Debian Bug report #660093,
regarding clock-setup: Please support /etc/adjtime in addition to /etc/default
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that
>> I also take it we don't need/want the main/contrib/non-free in
>> installer/, as our d-i will always be main/ only.
> What about firmware stuff?
Thats not a new thing - and still we dont have any such image in Debian.
Does firmware stuff itself need a whole image? Is anyone working on it
(to b
clock-setup_0.111_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
clock-setup_0.111.dsc
clock-setup_0.111.tar.gz
clock-setup_0.111_i386.udeb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon (running on host franck.debian.org)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ.
On Monday 21 May 2012, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Christian PERRIER (21/05/2012):
> > As you mention mod_wsgi to be obsoleting mod_python, do you think
> > we should install one of libapache2-mod-wsgi* packages with the
> > task?
>
> There are many other things, as can be seen in django (a python w
Christian PERRIER (21/05/2012):
> As you mention mod_wsgi to be obsoleting mod_python, do you think we
> should install one of libapache2-mod-wsgi* packages with the task?
There are many other things, as can be seen in django (a python web
framework)'s docs:
https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/de
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 21:21:47 +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> Le 21/05/2012 21:17, Cyril Brulebois a écrit :
> >That means more udebs, more stuff in the d-i image/initramfs. I'm not
> >sure it's worth the trouble. Quite the contrary, in fact.
> >
> >It looks to me like a separate build is bet
Your message dated Mon, 21 May 2012 21:49:17 +0200
with message-id <20120521194917.gu7...@mykerinos.kheops.frmug.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#673365: installation-report: dnet-common looks
unnecessary for normal environment
has caused the Debian Bug report #673365,
regarding installation-report:
Quoting Stefan Fritsch (s...@sfritsch.de):
> Package: task-web-server
> Version: 3.09
> Severity: normal
>
>
> mod_python is obsoleted by mod_wsgi and basically dead upstream (last
> commit to svn was 3 years ago).
>
> And mod_perl is IMNSHO not so popular anymore that it needs to be
> installed
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:10:42AM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
The following patch is also required to remove the use of
/etc/default/hwclock given that we never used it for the UTC
setting, since we moved it to /etc/adjtime directly.
Thanks,
Roger
--
.''`. Roger Leigh
: :' : Debian GNU/Lin
Le 21/05/2012 21:17, Cyril Brulebois a écrit :
That means more udebs, more stuff in the d-i image/initramfs. I'm not
sure it's worth the trouble. Quite the contrary, in fact.
It looks to me like a separate build is better as far as d-i is concerned.
How "costy" would those udeb be? Those are sm
Sebastien Bacher (21/05/2012):
> Currently gtk is doing a second build pass with different configure
> option for its udeb flavor because libxrandr, libxcomposite and
> libxdamage don't have udebs. It would be nice if you could add an udeb
> to libxrandr so we could bring gtk into a single pass bu
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reassign 673132 debian-installer
Bug #673132 [debian-installer-6.0-netboot-armel]
debian-installer-6.0-netboot-armel: Include LED modules for LaCie devices
Bug reassigned from package 'debian-installer-6.0-netboot-armel' to
'debian-installer'.
N
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 10:24:17PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> I also take it we don't need/want the main/contrib/non-free in
> installer/, as our d-i will always be main/ only.
What about firmware stuff?
Bastian
--
One does not thank logic.
-- Sarek, "Journey to Babel", stard
On 12853 March 1977, Joey Hess wrote:
> Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> I understand it right that doing it this way (ie. current symlink stays
>> around), it won't break anything, so we can "just do it for all suites"?!
> It appears that debmirror will be broken, if it helps. :/
Urgs.
> I can't find any
16 matches
Mail list logo
