Bug#228835: Installation report for beta 2 of d-i (failure)

Package: installation-reports Version: beta2 Severity: normal INSTALL REPORT Debian-installer-version: beta 2 uname -a: Linux blackhole 2.4.23-1-k7 #1 Mon Dec 1 00:05:09 EST 2003 i686 GNU/ Linux Date: 21/1/04 Method: CDROM and network install using sarge-i386-businesscard.iso Initial boot was

Re: Another installation failure report

Hi... On Wed, 4 Jun 2003 07:38 pm, Martin Sjögren wrote: There are a few issues with the patch: 1. It asks about too many packages. Packages that are already installed should definitely not be in the list at all. It shouldn't prompt for those - see the tests for installed() when building the

Bug#196033: No _meaningful_ feedback when debootstrap fails

Package: base-installer Version: 0.022 Severity: normal Hi... I'm using the 'newt' frontend of debian-installer when installing. If debootstrap fails, the message that the frontend displays does not contain enough information to track down the problem (one has to go grubbing through

Re: Another installation failure report

Hi... On Tue, 3 Jun 2003 10:39 pm, Martin Sjögren wrote: Yes. A future project of mine is to change that question so that packages with priority standard will appear in the list too, with checked boxes. But this question will most likely be asked at priority low, as only a nitpicker should

Another installation failure report

Hi... I thought I'd add my installation failure report for today too: After much screwing around (ie. creating my own local archive of udebs and base packages, d-i does not play well with apt-cacher btw), I finally almost got d-i to install debian. Installing using the 'netboot' image, from a

Re: Please make discover2 udebs available for testing

Hi Jeff... In addition to the three patches I sent earlier for discover to build from source, I suggest the attached patch to debian/rules, which simply adds a '.' in an opportune place, so the libdiscover.so symlink is not added to the udeb (it's not needed, and it causes the installer's

Re: Please make discover2 udebs available for testing

Hi.. I imagine the correct fix is simply not to tag discover.conf as a conffile, so dpkg doesn't play fast and loose with renaming it. Hence add a: rm -f debian/discover-udeb/DEBIAN/conffiles right after the call to dh_installdeb when building discover-udeb. This seems to work fine. =) Peter

Re: Please make discover2 udebs available for testing

Hi... On Sun, 1 Jun 2003 07:27 pm, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: [Petter Reinholdtsen] developer:~# discover --data-path=linux/module/name \ --data-version=2.4 -t -d all -e ata -e pci -e pcmcia -e scsi display --data-version has no meaning without --data-path. I found the problem.

Re: dpkg-scanpackages and udebs

(but why are both in there in the first place?) =) Peter On Sun, 1 Jun 2003 08:15 pm, Thorsten Sauter wrote: Hi Peter, * Peter Hawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-06-01 07:11]: Quick question: How does one make dpkg-scanpackages look for udebs so I can generate a local apt-able repository

dpkg-scanpackages and udebs

Hi... Quick question: How does one make dpkg-scanpackages look for udebs so I can generate a local apt-able repository of udebs? =) Peter -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]