Bug#898738: debootstrap fails when specifying components

Hi Hideki, 2018-05-16 2:03 GMT+02:00 Hideki Yamane : >> See attached patch, against the offending commit. It doesn't apply to >> master as-is because of the by-hash addition. > > Simply initialize "ext" prevents this failure, could you check attached > patch, please? I

Re: debootstrap/1.0.98 breaks debomatic/0.23-1 autopkgtest in testing

Hi Paul, 2018-05-16 10:05 GMT+02:00 Paul Gevers : > The autopkgtest of debomatic in testing is apparently already broken¹ > without the new debootstrap for reasons unclear to me. As a result it > isn't blocking migration anymore². This is due to #898738. -- Cheers, Luca

Bug#898738: debootstrap fails when specifying components

found 898738 1.0.97 thanks Hi, 2018-05-15 21:19 GMT+02:00 Cyril Brulebois : > The issue seems to be the non-free Packages file being checked against > the checksum of the contrib one (both sha256 checksum and size in fact), > so that can't work. Thanks for checking! Indeed

Bug#898738: debootstrap fails when specifying components

Source: debootstrap Version: 1.0.98 Severity: serious debootstrap fails when specifying components on command line: # debootstrap --components=main,contrib,non-free unstable unstable http://deb.debian.org/debian I: Target architecture can be executed I: Checking Release signature I: Valid

Re: Bug#846982: override: downgrade priority of all libraries to optional

Hi Cyril, 2018-01-20 14:14 GMT+01:00 Cyril Brulebois : > Just as a reminder, priority is archive-wise so we won't have that in > unstable then in testing, right? Normally overrides are changed for unstable, but are propagated to testing during dinstall. If we have a look at a

override: downgrade priority of all libraries to optional

Dear -boot and -cd teams, could you please comment on the request of demoting library priorities from required and important to optional? Thanks, Luca

override: wget:web/standard

Dear -boot and -cd teams, could you please comment on the request of demoting wget priority from important to standard? Thanks, Luca

debian-installer-netboot-images_20141002_amd64.changes REJECTED

As requested by odyx === Please feel free to respond to this email if you don't understand why your files were rejected, or if you upload new files which address our concerns. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact

Re: Removal of linux-kernel-di-* packages?

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 * linux-kernel-di-ia64-2.6 * linux-kernel-di-mips-2.6 *

Removal of linux-kernel-di-* packages?

Hi, can linux-kernel-di-* sources and related binary packages be removed from unstable? Reading at [0] and [1], binaries should be provided by linux-2.6 already. [0] cap9odko9_21zxolagenchnte8+xc1p4xr6vxnavugqcwekb...@mail.gmail.com [1] 20110831125857.ga21...@thrall.0x539.de P.S. Keep me CCed

Comments regarding partman-nbd_0.1_amd64.changes

Hi, package depends on nbd-modules, but I can't find any reference for it. Could you please elaborate? Cheers, Luca -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive:

Re: Comments regarding partman-nbd_0.1_amd64.changes

it in the queue until packages are uploaded. -- .''`. : :' : Luca Falavigna dktrkr...@debian.org `. `' `- signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature