Control: block 864320 by 816111 595696
Hello,
gofloss gofloss, le mar. 06 juin 2017 13:52:05 -0700, a ecrit:
> below i describe multiple bugs in booting in jessie, which
> might be relevant to stretch.
[...]
> rebooted, and discovered that the font was unreadably small,
> unlike wheezy.
>
>
Processing control commands:
> block 864320 by 816111 595696
Bug #864320 [base] multiple critical problems booting
864320 was not blocked by any bugs.
864320 was not blocking any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 864320: 816111 and 595696
--
595696:
Package: debian-installer-9-netboot-amd64
Version: 20170615+deb9u6
Followup-For: Bug #917491
Dear Maintainer,
Some weeks ago, my Debian stretch netboot installer told me that
I needed to update, so I proceeded to download the new files:
On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 04:35:33PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
>On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 04:15:22PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>
>> The prefix variable is very much a single value, yes. It's used and
>> dereferenced all over the place inside grub as a single const char
>> *. Not something I'm
On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 04:15:22PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 02:32:23PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> >On Mon, 2019-06-10 at 03:37 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >> Any other suggestions on what we could do? Let me know what you
> >> think...
> >
> >Is signing an extra,
Hi Ian,
On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 02:32:23PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
>On Mon, 2019-06-10 at 03:37 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> Any other suggestions on what we could do? Let me know what you
>> think...
>
>Is signing an extra, d-i specific, grubnetXX.efi image out of the
>question?
Oh,
Hi there,
On Mon, 15 Apr 2019 at 23:24:19 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>>> One could argue that cryptodisk support has never been supported by
>>> d-i anyway,
>>
>> Yup, and I suppose that's why I overlooked this in my mail to
>> debian-boot :-P Jonathan Carter had a similar report last week
>>
On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 11:17:52AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>Hi Steve!
>
>On 6/10/19 4:37 AM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> 1. Update the docs to mention this - this is a new thing needed to
>> get netboot working with Buster. It's *currently* inconsistent,
>> as ia64 and
On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 11:08:35AM +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
>On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 03:37:41AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
...
>> I can see a couple of options here, but I'm not sure either of them
>> are good. Comments would be most welcome!
>>
>> 1. Update the docs to mention this
On Mon, 2019-06-10 at 03:37 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Any other suggestions on what we could do? Let me know what you
> think...
Is signing an extra, d-i specific, grubnetXX.efi image out of the
question?
Is the hard coded prefix a single prefix or is there a possibility of
searching a
Hi Steve!
On 6/10/19 4:37 AM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> 1. Update the docs to mention this - this is a new thing needed to
> get netboot working with Buster. It's *currently* inconsistent,
> as ia64 and armhf (as non-SB arches) are still using the old
> prefix setting. For the sake
I apologize for the signature mess, I removed the offending key resulting
from some sbuild setup I attempted some time ago.
Dom
--
3B10 0CA1 8674 ACBA B4FE FCD2 CE5B CF17 9960 DE13
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 03:37:41AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Hey folks,
Hi,
>
> We have a bit of a problem with PXE booting Grub in Buster, as shown
> in #928750:
>
> * On all supported arches, we *used* to generate a Grub netboot image
>inside d-i, with a prefix setting of
>
13 matches
Mail list logo
