Mirko Vogt writes:
> Looking at /usr/share/initramfs-tools/scripts/local-top/lvm2 more
> closely, passing a UUID also wouldn't trigger a `vgchange -ay` here.
> But a path like /dev/mapper/X would.
> So maybe the question is rather: how to make os-prober return a
> "root=/dev/mapper/X" line
Accepted:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Format: 1.8
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2021 05:35:51 +0100
Source: partman-btrfs
Architecture: source
Version: 53
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Debian Install System Team
Changed-By: Cyril Brulebois
Closes: 964818
partman-btrfs_53_source.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
partman-btrfs_53.dsc
partman-btrfs_53.tar.xz
partman-btrfs_53_source.buildinfo
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon (running on host usper.debian.org)
Your message dated Fri, 22 Jan 2021 04:48:43 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#964818: fixed in partman-btrfs 53
has caused the Debian Bug report #964818,
regarding Enable basic subvolume management for rootfs
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been
Looking at /usr/share/initramfs-tools/scripts/local-top/lvm2 more
closely, passing a UUID also wouldn't trigger a `vgchange -ay` here.
But a path like /dev/mapper/X would.
So maybe the question is rather: how to make os-prober return a
"root=/dev/mapper/X" line instead of one containing a
Just adding, this isn't only a feature request but results in
non-bootable systems.
If one of the os-probe'd systems e.g. is also a Debian, it will drop
into an initramfs due to not finding the root device.
This is due to - within the initramfs - the VGs as part of the the LVM
system only get
Hi,
I noticed there's been no active development on partman-btrfs since
2016, and I've had an MR open for over a year
https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/partman-btrfs/-/merge_requests/1
Does anyone have any objections to me adopting it? Anton?
Regards,
Nicholas
signature.asc
Package: os-prober
Version: 1.77
Severity: important
I noticed when running update-grub on Debian stable and testing, that
the resulting grub.cfg has lines as part of menuentres like:
"linux [..] root=/dev/dm-X"
for found linux installations on other block devices - in my case
Package: installation-reports
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: charlescur...@charlescurley.com
Dear Maintainer,
Please see Comments/Problems below.
-- Package-specific info:
Boot method: DVD
Image version: debian-bullseye-DI-alpha3-i386-DVD-1.iso
Date: Jan 20 2021 16:36 MST
Machine: FIT-PC 1
Hi Jonathan,
I just noticed that the latest 2 uploads of rootskel-gtk - done by you -
are lacking commits resp. tags in git (?).
That's
https://tracker.debian.org/news/1022142/accepted-rootskel-gtk-141-source-amd64-into-unstable/
from 01-2019 - no tag set
and
Control: reassign -1 pcmciautils
Control: tags -1 + patch
Charles Curley wrote:
> I tried a Xircom CreditCard Ethernet adapter, CE38-100BTX, which uses
> the xirc2ps_cs driver. It runs, if slowly, on an installed system. But
> on installation, the software fails to detect it also.
>
> I
On 2021-01-16 19:14:53 [+0100], Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> So I went over the open issues and pull requests, and currently
> don't see a reason not to upload it to unstable with those 2
> patches. I don't know about any other regressions in 1.1.1.
The openssl package migrated to testing.
I would
Not noticing humor, is no proof for the absence of humor.
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 04:40:14PM +, etkaar wrote:
> Good evening,
>
> after some testing it seems that I am just a very stupid person.
Mmm, one of my motivators for working on libre software projects
is collaborating with
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 03:10:47PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> And which of standard or important made most sense (AIUI, standard
> means "installed by default in d-i" and important means "installed by
> default in debootstrap").
wget is already Priority: standard and recommends
Processing control commands:
> reassign -1 pcmciautils
Bug #980271 [installation-reports] installation-reports: Toshiba Tecra 8000
Installation report Bullseye
Bug reassigned from package 'installation-reports' to 'pcmciautils'.
Ignoring request to alter found versions of bug #980271 to the same
On Jan 21, Julien Cristau wrote:
> So I'd like to raise the priority of ca-certificates from optional to
> at least standard, as a signal that it should be installed on
Good idea: I think that "standard" is appropriate.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
[bcc: {openssl,ca-certificates}@packages.d.o]
Hi,
the ca-certificates package is currently "Priority: optional", like most
of the archive. It's Recommended by a bunch of packages, Depended on by
an equivalent number, but I'm not sure if this is optimal. I suspect
most packages can be
17 matches
Mail list logo
