Processed: Re: Bug#931910: Installation report with missing UEFI boot entry

Processing control commands: > reassign -1 efibootmgr Bug #931910 [installation-reports] Installation report with missing UEFI boot entry Bug reassigned from package 'installation-reports' to 'efibootmgr'. Ignoring request to alter found versions of bug #931910 to the same values previously set

Bug#931910: Installation report with missing UEFI boot entry

Control: reassign -1 efibootmgr Control: forcemerge -1 905319 Steve McIntyre (2019-07-12): > Control: reassign efibootmgr > Control: forcemerge -1 905319 > […] > Merging the bugs... Fixing the merging. ;) Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois (k...@debian.org) D-I

Re: Growing the size of e2fsprogs-udeb by ~150k

On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 10:10:50AM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > > Colin suggested that I send a quick note to debian-boot to make sure > > this isn't going to be problematic. Do you think this is going to be > > an issue. (BTW, there has been size creep in e2fsprogs-udebs over the > > years;

Re: Bug#931911: user-setup: Fails to present no-root-password_first-user-sudoer option as a reasonable choice

Brian Potkin writes: > On Fri 12 Jul 2019 at 10:22:59 +0200, Philip Hands wrote: > >> Package: user-setup >> Severity: normal >> >> Prompted by this LWN comment relating to installing buster: >> >> https://lwn.net/Articles/792960/ >> >> "The installer text specifically said that not

Bug#931953: support bootspec entries for barebox

Package: flash-kernel Version: 3.99 Severity: wishlist Tags: patch Hello, barebox can boot from partitions that contain a so called bootspec entry (or several of them). It would be great if flash-kernel supported writing these. I already opened a merge request for flash-kernel at

Re: Bug#931911: user-setup: Fails to present no-root-password_first-user-sudoer option as a reasonable choice

On Fri 12 Jul 2019 at 10:22:59 +0200, Philip Hands wrote: > Package: user-setup > Severity: normal > > Prompted by this LWN comment relating to installing buster: > > https://lwn.net/Articles/792960/ > > "The installer text specifically said that not setting a root password >was a Very

Bug#931911: user-setup: Fails to present no-root-password_first-user-sudoer option as a reasonable choice

On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 11:11:09 +0200 Philip Hands wrote: > I've just pushed a branch to salsa: > > > https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/user-setup/tree/bug-931911-empty-root-password-OK > > that is an attempt to make this better. Comments welcome. That looks like an improvement. But

Bug#931910: Installation report with missing UEFI boot entry

Control: reassign efibootmgr Control: forcemerge -1 905319 On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 10:22:01AM +0200, Michael Hoffmann wrote: >Package: installation-reports > >Boot method: DVD image on USB stick >Image version: https://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current/amd64/iso-dvd/

Processed (with 2 errors): Re: Bug#931910: Installation report with missing UEFI boot entry

Processing control commands: > reassign efibootmgr Unknown command or malformed arguments to command. > forcemerge -1 905319 Bug #931910 [installation-reports] Installation report with missing UEFI boot entry Unable to merge bugs because: package of #905319 is 'efibootmgr' not

Bug#927165: More details

I don't find today any filed bug about this in gnome-disks tracker: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-disk-utility/issues and I'm not finding the way to register a user account to file a new bug report there. I've made some testing and bug seems only reproducible with LUKS2 formatted volumes.

Re: enabling salsa-CI pipeline

Michael Kesper writes: >> I'm sure there are ways of scripting the above using the gitlab API, so >> once I've discovered how I'll think about applying similar changes to >> all our repos -- if you already know how to prod the API, feel free to >> tell me. > > Did you ask on #salsaci? Not at

Re: enabling salsa-CI pipeline

Hi Phil, On 12.07.19 15:08, Philip Hands wrote: > Hi All, > > I just configured salsa-CI pipeline for 'user-setup', and it seems to > work, so I thought I'd say what was involved so that others can do the > same for other bits of d-i in a similar manner ... if they get to it > before I do (and

enabling salsa-CI pipeline

Hi All, I just configured salsa-CI pipeline for 'user-setup', and it seems to work, so I thought I'd say what was involved so that others can do the same for other bits of d-i in a similar manner ... if they get to it before I do (and also so I don't forget things next time I do it :-) ). The

apt-setup_0.151_source.changes ACCEPTED into unstable

Accepted: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Format: 1.8 Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 10:49:08 +0200 Source: apt-setup Binary: apt-setup-udeb apt-mirror-setup apt-cdrom-setup Architecture: source Version: 1:0.151 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Debian Install System

Bug#931911: user-setup: Fails to present no-root-password_first-user-sudoer option as a reasonable choice

I've just pushed a branch to salsa: https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/user-setup/tree/bug-931911-empty-root-password-OK that is an attempt to make this better. Comments welcome. Cheers, Phil. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd. |-| http://www.hands.com/

Processing of apt-setup_0.151_source.changes

apt-setup_0.151_source.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: apt-setup_0.151.dsc apt-setup_0.151.tar.xz apt-setup_0.151_source.buildinfo Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon (running on host usper.debian.org)

Bug#931918: Installation report

Package: installation-reports Boot method: Installed Debian 10 from scratch using the non-free ISO, dd:ed to a USB stick. A dual boot with the original Win10 intact. Image version: https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/cd-including-firmware/10.0.0-live+nonfree/amd64/iso-hybrid/

Bug#851774: marked as done (Stop using apt-key add to add keys in generators/60local)

Your message dated Fri, 12 Jul 2019 09:07:45 + with message-id and subject line Bug#851774: fixed in apt-setup 1:0.151 has caused the Debian Bug report #851774, regarding Stop using apt-key add to add keys in generators/60local to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem

Bug#928931: marked as done (debian-installer: apt-setup/local0/key fails on buster because gnupg is not installed)

Your message dated Fri, 12 Jul 2019 09:07:45 + with message-id and subject line Bug#928931: fixed in apt-setup 1:0.151 has caused the Debian Bug report #928931, regarding debian-installer: apt-setup/local0/key fails on buster because gnupg is not installed to be marked as done. This means

Bug#931917: grub-installer: call efibootmgr (if available) to keep track of boot order/options

Package: grub-installer Version: 1.165 Severity: important With stretch, we were getting efibootmgr's output in the installer's syslog, which could help track down issues related to the boot sequence. With buster, due to grub2's switch to using libefi* (since both the 2.02+dfsg1-14 and

Bug#928931: The inability to use apt-setup/local0/repository makes it impossible to upgrade to Debian 10

Hi Magnus, Magnus Määttä (2019-07-12): > I'm also having this issue which is making it impossible to upgrade to > Debian 10 from Debian 9. > > I'm depending on the possibility to add a repo during PXE-boot. Using > late-commands is not an option as there doesn't seem to be any >

Bug#931911: user-setup: Fails to present no-root-password_first-user-sudoer option as a reasonable choice

Package: user-setup Severity: normal Prompted by this LWN comment relating to installing buster: https://lwn.net/Articles/792960/ "The installer text specifically said that not setting a root password was a Very Bad Idea" looking at the text in question, I was surprised at how negative

Bug#928931: The inability to use apt-setup/local0/repository makes it impossible to upgrade to Debian 10

Hi, > I'm also having this issue which is making it impossible to upgrade to > Debian 10 from Debian 9. > > I'm depending on the possibility to add a repo during PXE-boot. Using > late-commands is not an option as there doesn't seem to be any > $selected_packages variable I can use to actually

Re: Growing the size of e2fsprogs-udeb by ~150k

Hi, Theodore Ts'o (2019-07-09): > I'm planning on simplifying e2fsprogs's debian/rules file, and one of > the ways I've been thinking about doing this is to stop doing a second > build just for e2fsprogs-udeb. The main difference has been disabling > features not needed for the installer, such

Bug#928931: The inability to use apt-setup/local0/repository makes it impossible to upgrade to Debian 10

Hi, I'm also having this issue which is making it impossible to upgrade to Debian 10 from Debian 9. I'm depending on the possibility to add a repo during PXE-boot. Using late-commands is not an option as there doesn't seem to be any $selected_packages variable I can use to actually install