We believe that the bug you reported is now fixed; the following
package(s) have been removed from unstable:
lilo-installer | 1.62 | source, amd64, i386
--- Reason ---
ROM; No longer needed for d-i
--
Note that
Your message dated Fri, 03 Apr 2020 04:48:27 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#955507: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #872094,
regarding lilo-installer: fdisk dependency needed
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been
Your message dated Fri, 03 Apr 2020 04:48:27 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#955507: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #412166,
regarding Suggests to use MBR on a strange disk
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been
Your message dated Fri, 03 Apr 2020 04:48:27 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#955507: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #451121,
regarding lilo-installer: doesn't show descriptive error messages
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the
Your message dated Fri, 03 Apr 2020 04:48:27 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#955507: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #428329,
regarding issues setting up crypto with GPT disk label
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has
Your message dated Fri, 03 Apr 2020 04:48:27 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#955507: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #49,
regarding lilo-installer: x32 port
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If
Your message dated Fri, 03 Apr 2020 04:48:27 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#955507: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #380416,
regarding lilo fails to install when using XFS root partition on AMD64
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that
Your message dated Fri, 03 Apr 2020 04:48:27 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#955507: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #183366,
regarding lilo-installer: Installation fail to boot on machine with HD on hdd
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
Your message dated Fri, 03 Apr 2020 04:48:27 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#955507: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #283427,
regarding Lilo installation failed
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If
Your message dated Fri, 03 Apr 2020 04:48:27 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#955507: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #243011,
regarding lilo-installer does not support non-chainloaded OSes such as linux
and the hurd
to be marked as done.
This means
Your message dated Fri, 03 Apr 2020 04:48:27 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#955507: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #269336,
regarding Should install a working /etc/lilo.conf file even when LILO
installation is cancelled by the user
to be marked as
Hi debian-boot@,
Please find below a nice mail from Thierry, summarizing a number of
changes that would be great to see merged into os-prober.
If anyone wants to volunteer to coordinate merging those changes into
Debian, to fix all the bugs©®™ for us and our downstream, that would be
great!
Package: debian-installer
Severity: wishlist
Tags: d-i
Dear Maintainer,
Sometimes wifi interfaces require additional work after the install is
completed before they can be used.
Not having packages such as 'iw' or 'wpa-supplicant' present on the system
immediately after the install makes this
I posted a while ago about graphical installer on arm64, here's an
update. The first two patches I've attached are Wookey's patches with
two module changes (noted in the patch message). The third one is to
enable graphical cdrom builds, which I tested with the d-i bullseye
alpha2 arm64 xfce
Hi,
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Hi Thorsten!
>
> On 4/2/20 10:30 AM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> > John Paul Adrian Glaubitz dixit:
> >
> >> No idea what the stance on i386 is. But I think Thorsten is a LILO user.
> >
> > No, I haven’t been using LILO for a long time either.
>
> Okay,
Hi Thorsten!
On 4/2/20 10:30 AM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> John Paul Adrian Glaubitz dixit:
>
>> No idea what the stance on i386 is. But I think Thorsten is a LILO user.
>
> No, I haven’t been using LILO for a long time either.
Okay, bad memory on my side then :).
> I _did_ use it about a
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz dixit:
>No idea what the stance on i386 is. But I think Thorsten is a LILO user.
No, I haven’t been using LILO for a long time either.
I _did_ use it about a decade ago, when I got back to Debian
after using only BSD for a while, but even before that, I
used loadlin
17 matches
Mail list logo
