Re: Re: TRIM support for ext4
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:04:52AM +, Miguel Figueiredo wrote: Hi all, Hi Add the mount option 'discard' for ext4 filesystems so, during partitioning, TRIM can be activated for SSDs in the installed system. I enabled that on ext4 on my SSD, and had two lockups in 24 hours. No lockups since turning it off, so I don't consider it safe yet at all. The man page seems to indicate it is very much in the testing phase at this point. I guess it's got stabilised in the later kernels, could you try it again? Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5208096e.8070...@debian.org
Bug#655333: installation-report: no graphical install, btrfs I/O errors, configuring grub failed
Package: installation-reports Version: 2.45 Severity: important Dear Maintainer, When I tried the graphical install, it just hang. So I continued with the non-graphical install. After partitioning (choosing btrfs for all but the swap partition), when installing the base system the root partition almost immediately gave I/O errors. So I went back and chose ext4 for all partitions instead. The configuring bootloader step (grub2 in my case) failed without obvious error message, so I went back, opened a console and fixed it manually. Only choosing continue without boot loader did work from there. Afterwards I had problems with the new gnome-shell, only the fallback works. But that has probably nothing to do with the installer. -- Package-specific info: Boot method: CD Image version: http://cdimage.debian.org/mirror/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/cd-including-firmware/daily-builds/sid_d-i/current/amd64/iso-cd/firmware-testing-amd64-netinst.iso downloaded on January 6th Date: January 6th Machine: Dell Optiplex 780 Partitions: Filesystem Type 1K-blocksUsed Available Use% Mounted on rootfs rootfs 9611492 2199432 6923820 25% / udev devtmpfs 1940464 0 1940464 0% /dev tmpfstmpfs 389312 324388988 1% /run /dev/mapper/filotes-root ext4 9611492 2199432 6923820 25% / tmpfstmpfs 5120 0 5120 0% /run/lock tmpfstmpfs 9031048 151496 8420800 2% /tmp tmpfstmpfs 778624 536778088 1% /run/shm /dev/mapper/filotes-home ext4 210616752 221776 199696224 1% /home /dev/mapper/filotes-tmp ext4 9031048 151496 8420800 2% /tmp /dev/mapper/filotes-var ext4 2882592 955632 1780528 35% /var Base System Installation Checklist: [O] = OK, [E] = Error (please elaborate below), [ ] = didn't try it Initial boot: [O] Detect network card:[O] Configure network: [O] Detect CD: [O] Load installer modules: [O] Detect hard drives: [O] Partition hard drives: [O] Install base system:[E] Clock/timezone setup: [O] User/password setup:[O] Install tasks: [O] Install boot loader:[E] Overall install:[O] Comments/Problems: Obviously the OKs after the Errors only happened when I worked around them. Like I said above, the graphical installer just hang after choosing it. I had to do a hard reboot to get back to the installer. I chose to use LVM. The boot partition was always plain ext4. When I chose btrfs (on LVM) for all other partitions (except swap), the base install spawned a gazillion I/O errors for the root partition. So I went back and chose ext4 (on LVM) instead. When configuring the boot loader (grub2), it showed me a progress bar and almost immediately a red message telling me it failed. So I went back, chose to open a console where I did the following: # chroot /target # update-grub inspected the /boot/grub/grub.cfg file # grub-install /dev/sda # ^D # exit Then I chose to continue without bootloader and it rebooted fine in the installed system. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120110143046.20684pk9xmvux...@webmail.ugent.be
Bug#638606: smbfs is deprecated by cifs-utils
Package: task-file-server Severity: normal Hi smbfs will be removed. Please recommend cifs-utils instead. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110820081623.20113.37415.report...@station.luk.local
Bug#638606: smbfs is deprecated by cifs-utils
On 08/20/2011 02:21 PM, Christian PERRIER wrote: Quoting Luk Claes (l...@debian.org): Package: task-file-server Severity: normal Hi smbfs will be removed. Please recommend cifs-utils instead. Committed. Thanks. While at it, I wonder if it is really a good idea to recommend SWAT. Very few people are seriously using it to manage Samba servers. Upstream apparently is still committed to swat as they are doing a GSOC project on it. So I guess it does not really hurt either. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4e4fafa1.60...@debian.org
Re: [RFC] Use of Built-Using in debian-installer
On 07/30/2011 06:23 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote: Hello, Hi Otavio During this night I got some nice progress on the stuff planned to debian-installer. I am adding the generated control file for review and comments. Basically it gather all udebs included on the initrd and puts this information in the Built-Using field of the binary package. Comments, welcome :-) Great start, though Built-Using expects source packages instead of binary (or udeb) packages. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4e3416ec.3060...@debian.org
Re: Changes to Debian Installer release process
On 07/28/2011 01:18 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote: I used some of Debcamp and Debconf time this year to discuss the Debian Installer release process with some people and after talking with many people it seems we agreed on the following changes on Debian Installer release process and it would be interesting to receive feedback on those to see if anyone see a problem we didn't notice yet. Great, lets make d-i as easy to handle as general packages (or at least almost ;-))! * Official uploads to be built against unstable Sounds good. * Linux kernel udebs to be built from linux source package Also looks good. * Debian Installer daily builds to be done from source uploads The daily builds will use the archive source for building so every time we do a change in unstable in a module that is included in initrd it will trigger a binNMU in all architectures replicating what we have in daily builds. When source changes in debian-installer source package are done, a new source upload will be required. Do the daily builds only uncover issues from building the initrd? A.k.a. will changes in packages other than the one in the initrd only have an effect on the install via genuine downloading from the archive at the time of the install? * Debian Installer experimental builds With Linux kernel udebs built from linux source we have the possibility to get the installer built against the development kernel that will be available on experimental and this is quite important to us to be able to test all this before it is available in unstable to avoid bad surprises for us and users. This will also be a handy tool for us to play with not well tested or finished stuff without breaking installer to end users. Sounds good! * Use of britney to handle package and installer migration This is the end of the process and some details are yet unknown how this is going to happen however but our goal is to make it happen since it will alleviate a lot the amount of work to make Debian Installer release to happen. Super! It is important to notice that it is not a single-man effort but a coordinate and shared effort of Debian Kernel, Debian Release and Debian Installer teams to get all this done. Those changes are not going to happen at once but in a progressive process and at the end this is going to make the installer release process easier to understand and handle. Right, lets go for it! Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4e341d9a.1040...@debian.org
Bug#634874: Please add error for udebs that contain non gziped tarballs
Package: lintian Version: 2.5.1 Severity: important Hi udpkg (the dpkg equivalent within d-i) does only support gziped tarballs. So it does not support data.tar.bz2 and similar. It would be good if there could be an autoreject for these to avoid broken daily/weekly images and uninstallable udebs. Proposal: Tag: udeb-contains-non-gzip-tarballs Severity: serious Info: This udeb contains non-gzip control or data tarballs. udpkg, debian-installer's dpkg equivalent, does not support non-gzip tarballs which means udebs that contain them won't be installable. This can also break the daily or weekly d-i images. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110720175803.7316.97446.report...@station.luk.local
Bug#621193: discover: diff for NMU version 2.1.2-5.1
tags 621193 + patch tags 621193 + pending thanks Dear maintainer, I've prepared an NMU for discover (versioned as 2.1.2-5.1) and uploaded it to DELAYED/5. Please feel free to tell me if I should delay it longer. Cheers Luk diff -u discover-2.1.2/debian/changelog discover-2.1.2/debian/changelog --- discover-2.1.2/debian/changelog +++ discover-2.1.2/debian/changelog @@ -1,3 +1,10 @@ +discover (2.1.2-5.1) unstable; urgency=low + + * Non-maintainer upload. + * Don't ship .la files (Closes: #621193). + + -- Luk Claes l...@debian.org Tue, 28 Jun 2011 07:31:15 +0200 + discover (2.1.2-5) unstable; urgency=low [ Petter Reinholdtsen ] diff -u discover-2.1.2/debian/libdiscover-dev.files discover-2.1.2/debian/libdiscover-dev.files --- discover-2.1.2/debian/libdiscover-dev.files +++ discover-2.1.2/debian/libdiscover-dev.files @@ -9,7 +9,6 @@ usr/include/discover/url-xml.h usr/include/discover/utils.h usr/lib/libdiscover.a -usr/lib/libdiscover.la usr/lib/libdiscover.so usr/share/doc/discover/api-reference/doxygen.png usr/share/doc/discover/api-reference/index.html
Re: Preparation of fixes to 6.0.1
On 02/18/2011 09:02 AM, Philipp Kern wrote: On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 06:33:39AM +0100, Christian PERRIER wrote: Quoting Otavio Salvador (ota...@ossystems.com.br): 'Urgent bug fixes', or something to that effect? They're not only bug fixes but also database updates and like. Important system updates? One might argue that they're not important as well (think about the updates we plan to do for iso-codes). Actually volatile was very well suited, indeed..:-) They won't be pushed through -updates, no? Normal updates are included into stable through point releases. AFAICT -updates should be used when changes should be pushed to users right now aka even before a point release. So all in -updates would be included in the point release together with other things accepted in proposed-updates. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d5ef06b.9000...@debian.org
Re: Status of some daily D-I builds
On 10/31/2010 04:49 PM, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote: Excerpts from Christian PERRIER's message of Die Sep 14 06:55:28 +0200 2010: Quoting Joey Hess (jo...@debian.org): Christian PERRIER wrote: - There are still some old builds. I'm still looking for someone to document the current autobuilder setup, so that it would become possible for others to investigate the cause for this and to add the relevant logs to the overview page. AFAIK currently only Luk knows how this works and it's not documented anywhere... (Luk, could you give me some pointers?) Note that I don't have access anymore to any buildd (was retracted without any notice) so I'm not very interested in pursuing why things don't work anymore... Note also that it doesn't seem that any are still being done the way I originally set them up as none are from luk@host anymore... On the buildds there was a separate chroot used to do the daily builds. The daily builds were done like 'documented' in the repository of d-i, nothing special. On d-i.debian.org the builds are aggregated and old ones cleaned (for the ones on buildds); and statistics prepared (for all of them). Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4ccdad21.8060...@debian.org
Re: Status of some daily D-I builds
On 09/22/2010 06:39 AM, Christian PERRIER wrote: Quoting Gaudenz Steinlin (gaud...@debian.org): IMHO the most prominent gap is that there is no indication if a buildd fails to upload a log to d-i.debian.org at all. Like it is the case for several architectures since Aug 17th. I could not find any information about how the process of scheduling d-i builds on buildds works. Thus I don't know where to start to improve the status reporting there. I would really appreciate if someone could provide a pointer to existing documentation or scripts driving this process. Luk Claes has been the person setting this up on the buildds. So, I think having him in the loop is the best action. Luk? The mips* buildds were changed, the promess was made to have the d-i builds moving to the new buildds, but due to several reasons that did not happen up to now. The hppa ones just failed miserably at the time and I did not get them working again, though I did not look since quite some time. The powerpc and s390 ones probably still work, though do not happen currently. I'll have a look when I'm back from VAC. Regarding the CD images it's probably a matter of changed machines (key issue). It does not currently happen differently on the buildd than on personal machines btw, it's just a separate environment on the buildd where the d-i builds happen as documented in the d-i repository. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c9a61df.90...@debian.org
udeb unblock: partman-base [Re: udeb unblocks: netcfg, libdebian-installer]
On 08/21/2010 05:41 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote: Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk writes: busybox recently migrated to testing; this new version apparently has an incompatibility with the netcfg version currently in testing, so we were asked by Aurelien whether it would be possible to migrate netcfg as well. netcfg is on the cannot automatically migrate without approval udeb list and, in order to migrate it, the new version of libdebian-installer (which is also on the needs approval list) would also have to migrate at the same time. ack for netcfg and libdebian-installer. What about partman-base (and rescue which Christian kind of acked)? Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c7039bc.30...@debian.org
Re: udeb unblock: partman-base [Re: udeb unblocks: netcfg, libdebian-installer]
On 08/21/2010 10:40 PM, Luk Claes wrote: On 08/21/2010 05:41 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote: Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk writes: busybox recently migrated to testing; this new version apparently has an incompatibility with the netcfg version currently in testing, so we were asked by Aurelien whether it would be possible to migrate netcfg as well. netcfg is on the cannot automatically migrate without approval udeb list and, in order to migrate it, the new version of libdebian-installer (which is also on the needs approval list) would also have to migrate at the same time. ack for netcfg and libdebian-installer. What about partman-base (and rescue which Christian kind of acked)? Got an ack from otavio on IRC. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c704331.4010...@debian.org
Re: Unblock brltty?
On 08/16/2010 05:21 PM, Samuel Thibault wrote: Adam D. Barratt, le Sat 14 Aug 2010 10:09:38 +0100, a écrit : The icu transition is ready to go, but currently stalled by brllty which is blocked because of its udeb. As I understand it, the udeb does not use icu It doesn't indeed. so should be safe to unblock in that regard; could we do so please? Brltty should be fine to unblock. unblocked Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c696d61.2090...@debian.org
Re: parted unblock, and upcoming transition
Colin Watson wrote: Could parted 1.8.8.git.2009.07.19-6 be unblocked, please? It's needed to smooth the path for parted 2.2 in the near future. unblocked. Speaking of which, I would like to upload parted 2.2 to unstable (it's currently in experimental) once 1.8.8.git.2009.07.19-6 reaches testing. The reason to try to get this into squeeze is that without it we won't properly support Advanced Format (i.e. 512-byte logical sectors) hard drives, which are becoming increasingly common. There is an ABI transition involved, among the following source packages (maintainers CCed): devicekit-disks fatresize gnu-fdisk gparted libvirt partconf partitioner partitionmanager partman-base pyparted qtparted udisks I believe that all of these are trivial matters of changing build-dependencies, with the exception of fatresize which needs a fix to its configure script as well (already done upstream); some of these packages already had appropriate or nearly-appropriate versions in experimental, last I checked. We might want to let devicekit-disks/udisks get into testing first, but after that's done, would it be convenient to the release team and to the other maintainers CCed here to start this transition? I can supervise it, upload the d-i parts and the QA-maintained qtparted directly, and file bugs with patches as necessary for the others. Please do hold your upload for now. We'll come back to you when the moment is right. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4b9bd991.3020...@debian.org
Re: netcfg: using udhcpc to get dhcp lease fails
Otavio Salvador wrote:
Hello Frans,
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 9:48 PM, Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl wrote:
On Saturday 30 January 2010, Otavio Salvador wrote:
I built a netboot image without dhcp3-udeb to test udhcpc, but it
failed miserably as it did not manage to get a lease during netcfg.
How well was this tested?
Works OK now. Nice.
Good; I have a limited way of testing it now so it is nice to know it
has worked fine to you.
Now it has one. /var/lib/udhcp/udhcpc.leases.
[...]
Probably worth adding/fixing for udhcpc is:
- missing option host-name
I've added it but I can't test it right now. Please see if it works for you.
- missing option domain-name-servers
- missing option dhcp-server-identifier
- strange leading slash for subnet-mask
- typo option domain-nam (missing e)
The other differences are probably not that relevant.
I've fixed/added them all.
Oh, and we also need 'ntpservers' I think. I can't test that here now, but
netcfg does (in dhcp.c):
if ((d = fopen(NTP_SERVER_FILE, r)) != NULL) {
char ntpservers[DHCP_OPTION_LEN + 1] = { 0 };
fgets(ntpservers, DHCP_OPTION_LEN, d);
fclose(d);
unlink(NTP_SERVER_FILE);
if (!empty_str(ntpservers)) {
debconf_set(client, netcfg/dhcp_ntp_servers,
ntpservers);
}
}
and the clock-setup postinst has:
db_get netcfg/dhcp_ntp_servers
Yes; it should work fine. The script writes the content to the file
netcfg expects. I couldn't test it as well but ought to work fine.
Also, if I run netcfg multiple times with dhcp3, I get multiple leases in
the leases file. You seem to overwrite the existing file. Not sure if that
needs fixing or not.
I think it is not worth. syslog now has the gotten IP each time it
runs so is easy to spot if it has been run twice.
With dhcp3 not all the leases in the file are valid aka only the latest
one for every IP is valid if it's not expired yet. I'm not sure if udhcp
would cope with invalid leases in the leases file?
Cheers
Luk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Migration hint needed for wireless-tools
Frans Pop wrote: Please force migration of wireless-tools to testing. Unfortunately it's entangled with the KDE transition. We need to do another upload of debian-installer to fix an issue with syslinux menus on x86, but it FTBFS on amd64 because: The following packages have unmet dependencies: netcfg: Depends: libiw30-udeb (= 30~pre1) but it is not installable Apparently britney has decided to migrate the binNMUs for netcfg without checking that their dependencies are met. It would be nice if that bug were fixed as well. It did not, though our tools failed to output that this was the culprit. Please also unblock partman-md/49. It fixes a broken dialog when removing RAID devices. hint added. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Problems with Debian PowerPC
Frans Pop wrote: On Friday 18 December 2009, Philipp Kern wrote: While I did not take care about the fallout due to time constraints on my side, I did take a look at the meta-gnome2 migration back then. We did not place any approval hint but it seems that the multiple arch:all confused britney sufficiently so that she decided to migrate those packages without any hint at all. Sadly I was unable to track down the bug in question and our log keeping is currently almost non-existant. As soon as something is copied over to testing autobuilding is automatically stopped, which might be another bug of its own. So, what can be done to fix the current breakage? Have tomboy (and mono) migrate to testing so meta-gnome2 can migrate to testing. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: kbd-chooser 1.53 MIGRATED to testing
Frans Pop wrote: On Monday 14 December 2009, Debian testing watch wrote: FYI: The status of the kbd-chooser source package in Debian's testing distribution has changed. Previous version: 1.52 Current version: 1.53 This means that lenny-support *must* also migrate before the release (but not necessarily before an upload of debian-installer). Known and unblocked already. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: please unblock pciutils 1:3.1.4-3 (udeb)
Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote: please unblock pciutils 1:3.1.4-3 (udeb) Not blocked, so no unblock needed. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Missed meeting on Nov 2nd
Christian Perrier wrote: It looks like I completely zapped the fact that we had a planned meeting on Nov. 2nd. As a consequence, I forgot sending a reminder during the week-end and didn't show up on IRC at the right time...:-( And it thus seems that Otavio was mostly alone to be online at the meeting time. Please accept apologies for this. I'll not be available next Monday (nor will Luk probably as he's planned to be in Paris and we'll have the french version of beersigning with a few others, somewhere in Paris), so I propose postponing the meeting to Now 16th. I will probably not be able to be available on Nov 16th neither, though please do continue without me if possible. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: PowerPC daily install CDs? [Was: Re: Netinst for testing?]
Frans Pop wrote: On Sunday 25 October 2009, Ian Campbell wrote: I only checked the first failure for each arch but this same failure seems to have effected mips (build_r4k-ip22_cdrom), s390 (build_generic) and armel (uild_iop32x_netboot_glantank). For mips and mipsel there's a much bigger problem: there have not been any builds at all since early July. It looks as if some of the central D-I buildds are simply not being managed. Wrong, ssh is/was broken on mips* so the results did not get uploaded, but the builds were not interrupted. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: please unblock libpng 1.2.40-1 pciutils 1:3.1.4-2 (udebs)
Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote: Changes: libpng (1.2.40-1) unstable; urgency=low . * New upstream release Changes: pciutils (1:3.1.4-2) unstable; urgency=medium . * Update pci.ids with snapshot dated 2009-09-18 03:15:01 Both are not blocked anymore. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Update of Linux 2.6.30?
Ben Hutchings wrote: Although Linux 2.6.31 has been released, it has a number of known regressions and I think we will wait for 2.6.31.1 before uploading to unstable. Most of the kernel team will be meeting in Portland from 22-26 September and I would expect the first upload to be done after that. In the mean time, 2.6.30 has had more stable updates, and there are many other bugs with patches available (the most important being #541307). I propose that we should make another upload of 2.6.30, although this will change the kernel ABI. Looks like a sane plan to me. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: please allow ltsp 5.1.83-1 into testing
Vagrant Cascadian wrote: ltsp 5.1.83-1 is blocked from migrating into testing, due to the ltsp-client-builder udeb, though this udeb is not used by debian-installer by default, and has no changes since the previous version. it has been in unstable for 7 days without introducing new problems. unblocked Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Bug#542113: RM: atari-bootstrap -- RoRA; m68k only
Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote: tags 542113 +moreinfo thanks Hi! * Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk [090817 23:39]: Please remove atari-bootstrap from unstable. It only produces binary packages for m68k so is redundant now that the architecture is no longer in unstable. atarai-bootstrap is a build-dependency for d-i. So just for safety I would like to have their okay before removing it. It's a build dependency on m68k, which is not in unstable nor testing... d-i can still be built for m68k, though only with packages outside the main archive. Currently only the source package atari-bootstrap is in unstable... Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: please unblock module-init-tools
unblocked Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Problems with kernel 2.6.26-2-686-bigmem
David Vanfleet wrote: Hi, I'm trying to get Debian (Lenny) to recognize 6 Gig of memory on a Dell PE 2650 server. I installed the basic 5.02a Debian system with just a minimal install then I installed the 2.6.26-2-686-bigmem kernel so it will see all the memory. When I boot into the bigmem kernel it fails to boot, the errors I get are: WARNING boot device may be renamed. Try root=/dev/hda3 ... ALERT! /dev/sda3 does not exist Did you try with changing the root device for the bigmem kernel to /dev/hda3? If you use grub for booting you could do that by pressing 'e' (for edit on the line with the bigmem kernel) and afterwards pressing 'b' (for boot) while in the grub menu (to just try it) or updating /boot/grub/menu.lst (for the bigmem kernel) and running update-grub before rebooting into the bigmem kernel. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: [stable] Adding bnx2x driver in 5.0.3
dann frazier wrote: On Sat, Aug 08, 2009 at 03:18:53PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote: Otavio Salvador wrote: - Update kernel-wedge/stable to include bnx2x if available (are there space issues here?) The space usage is neglitable and I think it can be done with a very small risk of regressions. Be sure to use the kernel-wedge of lenny for building it since we've changed kernel-wedge a lot during the 2.6.30 migration and it is not suitable for the lenny usage. What's the status here? I can get this done tomorrow. Good. - Update d-i in 5.0.3 to incorporate this driver Yes, you got the picture right. I offer help if required. This can probably be done already when kernel-wedge is updated? Please don't delay when unnecessary, TIA. Do we have an estimate for 5.0.3 yet? Reason I ask is that there is typically always some kernel changes queued - security or otherwise. I do understand wanting to have p-u in an always-releasable state, but it can be a lot of throwaway work given that a security update would force us to do a complete rebuild. If we have a target date in mind I could work up a schedule (w/ buffer room) to make sure that all the pieces are in place ahead of time. In the past we have almost always redone d-i after a kernel upload, though that should only be necessary when d-i related changes or an ABI bump is included... Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: [stable] Adding bnx2x driver in 5.0.3
Otavio Salvador wrote: Hello dann, On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 4:04 PM, dann frazierda...@debian.org wrote: The bnx2x driver was disabled in lenny due to its use of non-free firmware. I have put together a patch that would reenable this driver in lenny's 2.6.26 kernel, making use of the firmware split-out patch that has gone upstream in Linux 2.6.31-rc releases (and is currently in use in the linux-2.6 2.6.30 packages in sid). Really good news :-) I'd like to see if we can enable the use of this driver in 5.0.3. As far as I can tell, the necessary steps would be: - Update the kernel (obviously) - planned for a p-u upload this week - Backport the necessary changes for firmware-nonfree from sid to add the firmware-bnx2x package AFAICS both above are done? - Update kernel-wedge/stable to include bnx2x if available (are there space issues here?) The space usage is neglitable and I think it can be done with a very small risk of regressions. Be sure to use the kernel-wedge of lenny for building it since we've changed kernel-wedge a lot during the 2.6.30 migration and it is not suitable for the lenny usage. What's the status here? - Update d-i in 5.0.3 to incorporate this driver Yes, you got the picture right. I offer help if required. This can probably be done already when kernel-wedge is updated? Please don't delay when unnecessary, TIA. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Bug#536312: Our stable release
J.A. Bezemer wrote: Hi all, We haven't had a properly installable stable release for a full month now, #536312. Applies to both CD/DVD and network installs. I don't see much activity to resolve this. Are we so busy with squeeze and sid, that we don't care about lenny any more? FTP Masters: is it possible to fix this without a point release? If so what can we do to help in fixing it? Note that for the squeeze tasksel overrides, the unstable ones could be used for the moment. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: please allow simple-cdd 0.3.11 into testing
Vagrant Cascadian wrote: simple-cdd 0.3.11 is blocked from migrating to testing, as it contains the simple-cdd-profiles udeb, which is not used by default in debian-installer. no changes were made to the udeb since the version in testing. no new issues have been reported, and has been in unstable 9 days. please consider unblocking simple-cdd 0.3.11. unblocked Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: please allow ltsp 5.1.77-1 into testing
Vagrant Cascadian wrote: ltsp 5.1.77-1 is blocked from migrating into testing, due to the ltsp-client-builder udeb, though this udeb is not used by debian-installer by default, and has no changes since the previous version. it has been in unstable for 9 days without introducing new problems. unblocked Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Date for next D-I team meeting
Christian Perrier wrote: With our current schedulen, the next team meeting will happend on July 20th. However, This day of the week is not convenient for Colin Watson, our technical leader. Would people object to us moving the meeting day to Tuesdays, Wednesdays or Thursdays (same hour, that is 20:00 UTC)? Sorry for the late reply. Most of us are at Debcamp and dinner is served at 20:30 UTC, so I guess another hour would be better. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: please let dhcp3 into testing
Christian Perrier wrote: Quoting Luk Claes (l...@debian.org): Cyril Brulebois wrote: Andrew Pollock apoll...@debian.org (18/07/2009): I didn't realise that udeb-generating packages were still frozen. Is that necessary? Could you please let 3.1.2p1-1 into testing. It has a security fix for CVE-2009-0692 You're supposed to mail -boot as well… (Doing so, adjusting subject.) And yes, udeb-generating are always frozen. For the moment, it's supposed to change in the future though. Andrew's suggestion in his blog is interesting, though: I think if debian-boot is going to mandate this freeze for udeb-generating packages, then someone on debian-boot should be getting a report every day of udeb-generating packages that are due to enter testing in the next 24-48 hours, so they can be proactively vetted and their entry into testing not delayed unnecessarily. It shouldn't have to fall on me as the package maintainer to have to notice. That seems feasible and sustainable, isn't it? There is a webpage [1] tracking it, maybe it should just be used more? Cheers Luk [1] http://people.debian.org/~joeyh/d-i/testing-summary.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: please let dhcp3 into testing
Cyril Brulebois wrote: Andrew Pollock apoll...@debian.org (18/07/2009): I didn't realise that udeb-generating packages were still frozen. Is that necessary? Could you please let 3.1.2p1-1 into testing. It has a security fix for CVE-2009-0692 You're supposed to mail -boot as well… (Doing so, adjusting subject.) And yes, udeb-generating are always frozen. For the moment, it's supposed to change in the future though. Anyway, unblocked after ack from Otavio. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: unblock fontconfig?
Otavio Salvador wrote: Jurij Smakov ju...@wooyd.org writes: On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 06:40:19PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: Hi all, fontconfig has been waiting 21 days for migration, perhaps it should be unblocked? No RC bugs were filed during that time. debian-boot, please approve, this is blocked due to a udeb. Ack! unblocked Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: please unblock libtextwrap 0.1-8 pciutils 1:3.1.3-1 (both with udebs)
Otavio Salvador wrote: Aníbal Monsalve Salazar ani...@debian.org writes: On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 09:33:02AM +1000, Anibal Monsalve Salazar wrote: please unblock libtextwrap 0.1-8 pciutils 1:3.1.3-1 (both with udebs) Changes: libtextwrap (0.1-8) unstable; urgency=low . * Support cross building Patch by Neil Williams Closes: 480903 pciutils (1:3.1.3-1) unstable; urgency=low . * New upstream version * DH level compatibility is 7 * Fix out-of-date-standards-version * Fix dh-clean-k-is-deprecated ping Ack both unblocked Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: unblock request: mdadm 2.6.9-3
Otavio Salvador wrote: martin f krafft madd...@debian.org writes: Please unblock mdadm 2.6.9-3 to that I can move 3.0 into unstable. Ack Already unblocked since May 26th ... Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Coordinating efforts to get a new kernel in testing?
Christian Perrier wrote: During the last meeting of the D-I 'team' (ahem) which logs can be read from http://wiki.debian.org/DebianInstaller/Meetings, the situation of the kernel packages wrt testing transition was raised. Apparently, having a new kernel in testing (whether this is 2.6.30 or whatever other funky new version appears soon is not really relevant) is quite hairy. It needs quite some work to get reverse dependencies handled and getting it built on all architectures. Both of which are the main responsability of the kernel team... Could this be prioritized by the involved teams (mostly kernel and release, I'd guess) or are there already some plans for this to happen? There are no plans to force anything in like some propose in such situations as there is no clear plan of the kernel team to get the remaining issues solved soon after it would be forced in. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Coordinating efforts to get a new kernel in testing?
maximilian attems wrote: On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 01:08:05PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote: It needs quite some work to get reverse dependencies handled and getting it built on all architectures. Both of which are the main responsability of the kernel team... it is mostly done, beside the strange cpio missing build dep, that funnily surfaced now on i686. fixed in latest repo and scheduled for upload latest on this upcoming week. Could this be prioritized by the involved teams (mostly kernel and release, I'd guess) or are there already some plans for this to happen? There are no plans to force anything in like some propose in such situations as there is no clear plan of the kernel team to get the remaining issues solved soon after it would be forced in. without force hints linux-2.6 goes nowhere. If you mean this in general then you are misinformed. If you mean atm, then you know the answer to your following question. what are the remaining issues that you are concerned about? The ones that prevent linux-2.6 from migrating once it would be unblocked. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: unblock vte?
Paul Wise wrote: Hi all, Looks like vte can be migrated to testing. Unblocking it will allow 3 other packages to immediately migrate too and in time, 5 more packages. unblocked Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: nano migration
Paul Wise wrote: Hi all, Would it be acceptable to allow nano into testing finally? It has been waiting for 84 days for the maintainer to request migration to testing. unblocked Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: please allow console-setup 1.36 into testing
Anton Zinoviev wrote: console-setup is blocked due to its udebs. These udebs however are not yet used by the installer. The package has stayed about 40 days in unstable. Xserver-xorg from unstable depends on the version of console-setup in unstable. Because of this, in order to make sure that console-setup will not become a blocker of the migration of the new X from unstable to testing it will be good to move the current unstable console-setup to testing before I upload a new package in unstable. unblocked Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#533091: archive.gpg in amd64 netboot.tar.gz for etch
Otavio Salvador wrote: Hello Luk, On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Luk Claesl...@debian.org wrote: If it's binNMU safe, we could try a binNMU, otherwise it's best to either do a porter NMU if possible or a sourceful upload otherwise. Yeah, binNMU ought to work fine. Please go ahead with that. binNMU scheduled Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: please allow ltsp 5.1.76-1 into testing
Vagrant Cascadian wrote: ltsp 5.1.76-1 is blocked from migrating into testing, due to the ltsp-client-builder udeb, though this udeb is not used by debian-installer by default, and has no changes since the previous version. it has been in unstable for 8 days without introducing new problems. unblocked Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Upcoming Lenny Point Release
dann frazier wrote: On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 08:25:00PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: Hi there, we intend to do a Lenny Point Release on Saturday, June 20th. We will clear stable NEW in the coming days and then declare the point release frozen. Please hurry up if you still need something to go into Lenny at that point. A regression was reported yesterday in the linux-2.6 package in proposed-updates. The bug is #533657. Let me know if you think this is worth a delay of the point release. We have a stable upload planned for immediately after 5.0.2, so if the release continues on schedule, we will be able to direct affected users to the p-u apt source for a fix. Yes, it's worth delaying the stable point release. Unfortunately I won't be available the next couple of days and Phil was rather busy up to now (and I expect that to continue for some time still), so the point release will be delayed for at least a week. Hopefully we will be able to do the point release next Saturday, I hope Phil or some of our Release Assistants can confirm that soon. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Next point release and the Installer
Hi Can someone prepare a short summary of the changes in the next stable point release that affect the Installer to include in the announcement? At least the cdebconf improvements (especially important for Debian Edu) and the choose-mirror changes (installing Etch with Lenny's installer) are noteworthy AFAIK. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#533091: archive.gpg in amd64 netboot.tar.gz for etch
Otavio Salvador wrote:
Hello Pascal,
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:58 AM, Pascal
Vandeputtedebian-b...@asmodeus.be wrote:
[...]
# ls -al initrd-{amd64,i386}/usr/share/keyrings/archive.gpg
-rw-r--r-- 1 pvdputte pvdputte 4148 2009-06-16 10:42
initrd-amd64/usr/share/keyrings/archive.gpg
-rw-r--r-- 1 pvdputte pvdputte 5801 2009-06-16 10:42
initrd-i386/usr/share/keyrings/archive.gpg
You can see that the i386 archive.gpg file is clearly larger.
[...]
This is indeed a problem; probably the package were not up to date on
the used mirror :(
RM team,
Is there a way to update the installer in case?
If it's binNMU safe, we could try a binNMU, otherwise it's best to
either do a porter NMU if possible or a sourceful upload otherwise.
The resulting package will be in oldstable-proposed-updates till the
next oldstable point release.
Cheers
Luk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Switch to udhcpc in netcfg
Otavio Salvador wrote: Hello Luk, Hi Otavio On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Luk Claesl...@debian.org wrote: Attached is a first try to support udhcpc in netcfg. Thank you very much by working on it. I opted for dropping support for pump and the ISC dhcp client, though that could be reverted if really wanted. I'd much prefer to have as an extra option in this moment, instead of droping them. It makes the diff easier to be reviewed and also allow us to have them as fallback in case we find any serious regression and also allows for easier testing. A small thing I've noticed is that you've not kept the code using same coding style it had. Please split the structure initializators and try to leave the coding style as near as possible from current one. That would be rather hard as the way you can specify options is very different than what pump or dhcp3 use. For udhcp everything has to be specified explicitly on the command line repeating the option specifiers AFAICS. I also think that having the fall back at the cost of more complex code is suboptimal as we can always revert the commit when really needed. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: [RFC] Packages that looks ready for uploading
Vincent McIntyre wrote: Can someone check that choose-mirror is the correct version please? And that it actually works? I reopened #517644 but have had no response after 3+ weeks. Well, reopening was strange as a fixed version was in proposed-updates at that time, though as there are no CD images for it, I left it alone so you and others would not keep reporting it. Feel free to test with the version in proposed-updates to really make sure it's fixed. See also #532840, which might be related. That has been fixed in the previous point release of etch (debian-installer 20070308etch5). Hopefully this can be sorted out before 5.0.2 goes out. As it is in proposed-updates it should make it to 5.0.2 without problems. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Switch to udhcpc in netcfg
(revision 58745)
+++ debian/control (working copy)
@@ -2,14 +2,14 @@
Section: debian-installer
Priority: optional
Maintainer: Debian Install System Team debian-boot@lists.debian.org
-Uploaders: Joey Hess jo...@debian.org, Colin Watson cjwat...@debian.org
+Uploaders: Joey Hess jo...@debian.org, Colin Watson cjwat...@debian.org, Luk Claes l...@debian.org
Build-Depends: debhelper (= 5.0.22), dpkg-dev (= 1.9.0), libdebconfclient0-dev (= 0.46), libdebian-installer4-dev (= 0.41), po-debconf (= 0.5.0), libiw-dev (= 27+28pre9-1)
Vcs-Svn: svn://svn.debian.org/d-i/trunk/packages/netcfg
Package: netcfg
XC-Package-Type: udeb
Architecture: i386 sparc alpha m68k arm armel armeb powerpc mips mipsel hppa ia64 amd64 lpia
-Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}, ${misc:Depends}, dhcp3-client-udeb (= 3.1.0-2), ethernet-card-detection
+Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}, ${misc:Depends}, busybox-udeb (= 1:1.13.3-1), ethernet-card-detection
Provides: configured-network
XB-Installer-Menu-Item: 1800
Description: Configure the network
Re: Upcoming Lenny Point Release
dann frazier wrote: On Sun, Jun 07, 2009 at 03:35:16PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: Hello, On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 6:01 AM, Holger Levsenhol...@layer-acht.org wrote: Hi, for Debian Edu it would be great if cdebconf would be updated to 0.141 in stable and new d-i initrds would be build, as we are using them directly and are being bitten by #508042, #507372 and #343119. Those bugs were fixed in 0.140, but due to #525209 0.141 is desirable. I'm not sure if it's realistic at all (though the changes are just bugfixes and translation updates), but it would be good to have an answer, so either Debian Edu can use unmodified d-i or we have to fix it ourselves, which would mean branching d-i and a whole lot of more work (for the years to come). I have no problem in prepare that fix for it however it needs a full d-i update to happen. If RM team is OK with it I can take a look at it and prepare the packages during this week. If d-i does respin, it would be cool if we could include an updated lkdi-s390, which would make the fix for #511334 available at install time. As coordinated on IRC, it's fine to include the cdebconf and above linux fix as well as the d-i respin as long as it is all uploaded, reviewed and accepted at least one week before the actual point release. Otavio already started to work on cdebconf in the meantime and Dann will work on the kernel and upload soon. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
[Fwd: Upcoming Lenny Point Release]
Hi Forwarding this announcement as it might directly affect your team. Don't hesitate to forward it further if you think that can be useful. Cheers Luk Original Message Subject: Upcoming Lenny Point Release Resent-Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 18:25:12 + (UTC) Resent-From: debian-rele...@lists.debian.org Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 20:25:00 +0200 From: Philipp Kern pk...@debian.org Organization: The Debian Project (http://www.debian.org) To: debian-rele...@lists.debian.org CC: t...@security.debian.org, pr...@debian.org Hi there, we intend to do a Lenny Point Release on Saturday, June 20th. We will clear stable NEW in the coming days and then declare the point release frozen. Please hurry up if you still need something to go into Lenny at that point. Kind regards, Philipp Kern -- .''`. Philipp KernDebian Developer : :' : http://philkern.de Stable Release Manager `. `' xmpp:p...@0x539.de Wanna-Build Admin `-finger pkern/k...@db.debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: please approve and unblock xfsprogs 3.0.2 (udeb)
Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote: please approve and unblock xfsprogs 3.0.2 (udeb) unblocked Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: please approve and unblock pciutils 1:3.1.2-4 (udeb)
Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote: please approve and unblock pciutils 1:3.1.2-4 (udeb) unblocked Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: please approve and unblock libpng 1.2.36-1 (udeb)
Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote: please approve and unblock libpng 1.2.36-1 (udeb) unblocked Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: please approve and unblock rdate 1:1.2-1 (udeb)
Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote: please approve and unblock rdate 1:1.2-1 (udeb) unblocked Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: unblock request: mdadm 2.6.9-3
martin f krafft wrote: ... has been in testing for 20 days. Should not affect d-i. unblocked cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Please unblock glib2.0 and atk1.0
Josselin Mouette wrote: Hi, glib2.0 and atk1.0 have been ready to migrate to testing for a while. The former has a RC bug fixed and the other which is Is it possible to unblock them? unblocked Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: please allow ltsp 5.1.73-1 into testing
Vagrant Cascadian wrote: ltsp is blocked from migrating into testing, due to the ltsp-client-builder udeb, though this udeb is not used by debian-installer by default, and has no changes since the previous version. it has been in unstable for 6 days without introducing new problems, and includes several updated translations, new manpages, updated manpages, and updated documentation. unblocked Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: D-I: please test daily builds for detection of devices on HPPA bus
Frans Pop wrote: On Thursday 14 May 2009, Frans Pop wrote: It would be great to get confirmation that automatic device detection works. If you have relevant hardware, please give one of the daily built images of the installer a try: http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/ I've been seeing seemingly random build failures for HPPA for the dailies: Unpacking cdebconf-udeb (from udebs/cdebconf-udeb.udeb) ... *** glibc detected *** dpkg: corrupted double-linked list: 0x00100da0 *** dpkg: error processing udebs/cdrom-checker.udeb (--unpack): subprocess dpkg-split killed by signal (Aborted) Errors were encountered while processing: udebs/cdrom-checker.udeb This seems to be happening regularly, but not consistently. This looks fairly serious and should be investigated. Quite likely porter help will be needed. The problem is known and is being investigated by the hppa porters AFAIK. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
status persistent naming of devices for disks
Hi There were some commits related to this AFAIR, though it's unclear what the exact status is. Is it time to start testing or are there still some issues left? What's the next step that needs to be taken? Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#528489: tasksel: kde-desktop neeeds adjusting for KDE4
Adeodato Simó wrote: + Adeodato Simó (Wed, 13 May 2009 11:04:38 +0200): Hello, while trying to get an initial view of migrating KDE4 to testing with britney, I noticed that our taskel-meta-faux package [1] was rendered uninstallable because the kde-core metapackage is no longer provided. It seems the KDE meta-packages have been re-organized for KDE4, and now kde-full, kde-minimal and kde-standard are provided. It'd be nice if you could be looking into updating tasksel to these new metapackages, so that there's a version ready to migrate together with KDE4. So, uhm, things have been moving forward nicely since I submitted this, and KDE4 is now ready to migrate to testing. Now, I think to have read on -boot that installing squeeze is not supported at this stage, until Beta1 appears, so I'd like to know whether I can go forward and push KDE4 to testing already, or if we really need to wait for tasksel to be adjusted. A quick reply would be great, since I wouldn't want to lose this window of opportunity for finishing off this transition. Please go ahead. Fixing it before the first beta release is still needed though. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Please unblock dmraid/1.0.0.rc15-7
Giuseppe Iuculano wrote: Hi, Could you unblock dmraid/1.0.0.rc15-7 please? unblocked Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: please allow simple-cdd 0.3.10 into testing
Vagrant Cascadian wrote: simple-cdd 0.3.10 is blocked from migrating to testing, as it contains the simple-cdd-profiles udeb, which is not used by default in debian-installer. no changes were made to the udeb since the version in testing. no new issues have been reported, it closes a couple bugs, and has been in unstable 10 days. please consider unblocking simple-cdd 0.3.10. unblocked Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Code cleanup: take 1
Hi I had a first look at cleaning up some code, first step being removal of packages from the repository that seem to not be used in the official archive anymore: * sarge-support * vmelilo-installer (also from unstable)? * sysconfig-writer * linux-kernel-di-m68k-2.6 * linux-modules-di-m68k-2.6 Can these safely be removed from the repository? Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Code cleanup: take 1
Frans Pop wrote: On Saturday 02 May 2009, Luk Claes wrote: * sarge-support * vmelilo-installer (also from unstable)? * sysconfig-writer * linux-kernel-di-m68k-2.6 * linux-modules-di-m68k-2.6 Can these safely be removed from the repository? None of these should be removed. The *only* one which could possibly be discussed in this list is sarge-support. That's one. On Saturday 02 May 2009, Frans Pop wrote: On Saturday 02 May 2009, Luk Claes wrote: * linux-modules-di-m68k-2.6 This one actually could be removed. That's two. Why would removal from the modules package be ok and not removal from the kernel package or the bootloader installer btw? What's special with the modules package? On Saturday 02 May 2009, Frans Pop wrote: On Saturday 02 May 2009, Bastian Blank wrote: On Sat, May 02, 2009 at 12:38:47PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote: I had a first look at cleaning up some code, first step being removal of packages from the repository that seem to not be used in the official archive anymore: Since when is d-i restricted to architectures in the main debian archive? This decision belongs to the m68k people. Hmm? So m68k porters should decide on s390's sysconfig-writer [1]? ;-) I fully agree with your statement though. So what about the modules package in that case? [1] Which is only included in the list because it looks like Luk was somewhat sloppy when checking whether a package is in the archive. Not at all, that package is not in the archive, some people where sloppy with not renaming the directory name in the repository apparently. Would it be fine for me to rename the directory? Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Please unblock eject
Frank Lichtenheld wrote: Hi. Please let migrate eject/2.1.5+deb1+cvs20081104-6 to testing. unblocked Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: powerpc testing install CDs out of date?
Rick Thomas wrote: Since the iso's in http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/daily-builds/daily/arch-latest/powerpc/iso-cd/ still date from January, I assume that the new hardware for building powerpc packages hasn't been installed yet. If there an expected time of arrival for this? These are reactivated in the mean time. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: [RFH] Update of Debian Installer for 2.6.29
Jurij Smakov wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 09:51:56PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
Hello arch porters,
Most arches has 2.6.29 packages ready (AFAIK only hppa lacks them
right now) and I also did most changes for all arches on SVN to get
2.6.29 updating as easy as possible. Now, we need porters' help.
Please check your pet arch and update the kernel and modules for
2.6.29. This is quite important to us to start testing installer with
this kernel.
Well, 2.6.29 does not even boot on my SunBlade 1000, failing early in
the boot process:
I guess you found the culprit in the mean time (bad config for the 64bit
kernel)?
Cheers
Luk
Rebooting with command: boot
Boot device: disk File and args:
SILO Version 1.4.13
boot:
Allocated 8 Megs of memory at 0x4000 for kernel
Kernel doesn't support loading to high memory, relocating...done.
Loaded kernel version 2.6.29
Loading initial ramdisk (6348059 bytes at 0x40 phys, 0x40C0 virt)...
ERROR: Last Trap: Fast Data Access MMU Miss
Error -256
{0} ok
2.6.26 boots fine under the same conditions.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Please unblock gtk+2.0
Josselin Mouette wrote: Hi, please let gtk+ 2.16 go into testing. It is blocking, among other things, the gnome-desktop transition. unblocked Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Request for review change in user-setup template
Christian Perrier wrote: Quoting Justin B Rye (j...@edlug.org.uk): The root user should not have an empty password. If you leave this empty, the root account will be disabled and the system's initial user account will be given the power to become root using the sudo command. And the root account will be disabled is useful information. All that's left is: mind the quotes round sudo! OK. So, Luk, this is the final proposal we come up with: The root user should not have an empty password. If you leave this empty, the root account will be disabled and the system's initial user account will be given the power to become root using the sudo command. Ok, I'll commit this now. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: powerpc dailies back
Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 02:38:39PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: Hello Luk and Wouter, On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Luk Claes l...@debian.org wrote: [...] I've prepared powerpc dailies on one of the buildds, so please tell me if I should update the repositories or if you want to keep providing the dailies yourself for now. Where exactly are they set up? on praetorius. The plan is to build all dailies on the buildds and have them all end up on d-i.debian.org eventually... I prefer it those are done on buildd machines; it also allows Wouter to use the machine for ppc hacking and test of the installer. Any objection to it Wouter? Eh, not at all. Since I'm part of the powerpc buildd team, I could even keep an eye on it myself. Right, though note that I see the current way the setup on the buildds is done for building the dailies is a temporary solution. The main reason being that concurrent building with regular builds on the buildd might cause some problems. Building it on the buildd is the right thing to do though as building it on less trusted machines is not what we want IMHO. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Request for review change in user-setup template
Hi Below is the change to the user-setup-udeb templates I intend to commit, please review it. Cheers Luk --- debian/user-setup-udeb.templates(revision 57747) +++ debian/user-setup-udeb.templates(working copy) @@ -43,6 +43,10 @@ A good password will contain a mixture of letters, numbers and punctuation and should be changed at regular intervals. . + Choosing an empty root password is not allowed. If you choose an empty + password, then a user account will be created and given the power to + become root using the 'sudo' command. + . Note that you will not be able to see the password as you type it. Template: passwd/root-password-again -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Installation of sudo based systems
Luk Claes wrote: Luk Claes wrote: Hi Jérémy pointed me to this outstanding issue, so I had a look... On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 00:00:45 +0200, Jérémy Bobbio wrote: On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 12:42:44AM +0300, Eddy Petrișor wrote: I know that adding another question at high priority might not be a good idea, so an option would be to enable (or ask a confirmation) sudo based installation if the user enters an empty root password during user-setup. Of course, that under the condition that the text displayed at that point says clearly that entering an empty password would lead to such a behaviour. That was my intention. :) Sorry for not being totally clear about it. Please find attached a first try at d-i hacking to implement the above :-) Note that I didn't test it yet. I tested it, and it all works as intended. So I'm going to commit this one of the next days unless someone objects. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: powerpc dailies back
Wouter Verhelst wrote: Hi, As you may know, I stopped the powerpc dailies about a month ago, due to the fact that the machine on which they were running was a PowerMac 8500, an oldworld machine, that is no longer supported by recent kernels; the kernel that it does run is now too old for the libc in squeeze. They now run on my old laptop (an apple powerbook G4, presumably that'll be supported for quite a while to come) and will in time be migrated to a PegasosII system that is with Martin Michlmayr currently but which should make it over here. As long as that migration hasn't happened, there might be intermittent cases where the powerbook doesn't manage to do the daily build on one or another day, since it's not really 'hosted' ATM. This is a temporary arrangement, anyway. If this happens more than one or two days in a row, that means it's gone offline and I haven't noticed; feel free to gently nudge me in that case. As I type this, the first of the dailies built on country (my old laptop) is being uploaded to people.debian.org I've prepared powerpc dailies on one of the buildds, so please tell me if I should update the repositories or if you want to keep providing the dailies yourself for now. The plan is to build all dailies on the buildds and have them all end up on d-i.debian.org eventually... Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
[POWERPC] Adding CHRP boot structure on ISO images
Hi Wartan You updated the powerpc build config for adding a CHRP boot structure on ISO images [1]. Though when trying to build images, it doesn't find the bootinfo.txt, where should it come from? Cheers Luk [1] http://svn.debian.org/viewsvn/d-i/trunk/installer/build/config/powerpc.cfg?r1=55119r2=57886 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Propagation stable - {testing,unstable} and udebs
Adeodato Simó wrote: + Adeodato Simó (Mon, 13 Apr 2009 10:53:58 +0200): * put oldsys-preseed 3.2lenny1 udeb in lenny, replacing 3.2? * put all *-2.6.26-2-* kernel and module udebs in testing, REPLACING THEIR 2.6.26-1 COUNTERPARTS. * drop the *-2.6.26-1-* kernel and module udebs from unstable, now that the 2.6.26-2 are there. After acknowledgement from Otavio on IRC, this is now done. According to the linux-kernel-di-mips-2.6_1.9lenny1 changelog, the following udebs should be dropped from stable: * rtc-modules-2.6.26-1-r4k-ip22-di 1.9 * rtc-modules-2.6.26-1-r5k-ip32-di 1.9 I’ll ask ftpmaster. Though, uhm, it seems all the 2.6.26-1-* udebs were left lying around. I guess all those should be removed as well? There was no decruft for d-i, so installing with the media from right after the release should (for some?) still be possible. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: please unblock beep 1.2.2-23 for squeeze (udeb related)
Gerfried Fuchs wrote: Hi! Please accept beep to transition to testing. It is mostly only a translation and cosmetic update, no code changes involved. For your convenience, here's the changelog: unblocked Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Please unblock atk1.0
Otavio Salvador wrote: 2009/4/15 Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org: Hi, atk1.0 (which has an udeb) is blocked and cannot enter testing at the moment. Would it be possible to unblock it? BTW, I don’t know whether this is possible, but it would be nice if the rules for udeb migration could be relaxed for a while, given the expected amount of updates. ATM they're really relaxed; more to the end of mounth they should be more restrict again since we'll probably be working at alpha1 images. unblocked Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Propagation stable - {testing,unstable} and udebs
Adeodato Simó wrote: * put all *-2.6.26-2-* kernel and module udebs in testing, REPLACING THEIR 2.6.26-1 COUNTERPARTS. * remove the arm kernel and module packages again from unstable/testing. Cheers luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: zlib 1:1.2.3.3.dfsg-13
Mark Brown wrote: Please consider zlib for migration to testing, it has been in unstable for quite some time and contains only one very small change: unblocked Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Reminder: D-I team meeting April 11th 20:00
Christian Perrier wrote: Quoting Otavio Salvador (ota...@ossystems.com.br): What about Every 1st and 3rd Monday of each month ? This will obviously make a 3 week delay sometimes but that would be the price to pay to simplicity. This works nice and also keeps it simple enough. So, if we adopt this, the next meeting should be on Monday April 20th, ie next Monday. Would that be OK for everybody ? (I'll be at the Samba XP conference but I expect to have network there) I guess same applies for me :-) We could also decide by advance what the maximum meeting duration would be. 1h30 seems to be appropriate for me. If we have very specific stuff that need longer discussions, we can still plan special meetigns for it. Having regular meetings allow us to have short ones; I think 1h30min is enough. Specially after those that we're doing to organize things I do believe they'll be able to be shorter. So, meeting every 1st and 3rd Monday of the month at 20:00UTC? Would be fine for me. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
DebConf: D-I Workshops and a D-I talk to explain and motivate?
Hi Official events have to be submitted in the Pentabarf interface before Wednesday if I'm not mistaken. Would it be ok if I submit D-I Work Sessions for during DebCamp? How long and how many do we want in that case? Does someone want to give a D-I talk during DebConf to explain how it all works, how people can help and why it's a cool project to work on? Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: DebConf: D-I Workshops and a D-I talk to explain and motivate?
Otavio Salvador wrote: On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Luk Claes l...@debian.org wrote: Hi Official events have to be submitted in the Pentabarf interface before Wednesday if I'm not mistaken. Would it be ok if I submit D-I Work Sessions for during DebCamp? How long and how many do we want in that case? Does someone want to give a D-I talk during DebConf to explain how it all works, how people can help and why it's a cool project to work on? I'd be interested in both but I STILL haven't hear from debconf-team about the accessibility; I fear to have same problems that made me to not being able to go to Argentina :( Ok, D-I Work Sessions submited (though it would be good to have an idea on how long a session should be and how many we want) and several reminders sent to the DebConf organisers. Lets just make sure you can attend DebConf! Otavio: would you be willing to give the talk, if so can you please submit it in the Pentabarf interface? Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Please unblock ttf-dejavu
Davide Viti wrote: Hi, please allow current ttf-dejavu (2.29-2) into testing. It contains a couple of udebs. unblocked Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: debian-installer_20070308etch5_amd64.changes INSTALLED into stable
There is a problem with the dak code for oldstable point releases. Joerg is fixing it atm. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: please allow ltsp 5.1.69-1 into testing
Vagrant Cascadian wrote: ltsp is blocked from migrating into testing, due to the ltsp-client-builder udeb, though this udeb is not used by debian-installer by default, and has no changes since the previous version. it has been in unstable for 6 days without introducing new problems, and includes several updated translations. unblocked Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Unblock openssl
Kurt Roeckx wrote: Hi, Can openssl 0.9.8g-16 be hinted to testing? It fixes a security issue. It has a udeb. unblocked Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Complete draft of the March 16th and 30th meetings minutes
Frans Pop wrote: On Monday 06 April 2009, Luk Claes wrote: Frans Pop wrote: On Monday 06 April 2009, Otavio Salvador wrote: It would be nice if you could clarify why do you believe it is nonsense. No thanks. I see no reason why _I_ should make that effort. Please stop that hostility. What hostility? Isn't it normal that the person proposing changes should provide argumentation for those changes before the person doing all the work defends his current methods? All I've seen so far is: 22:44 otavio - we could upload installer manual too to give more up to date docs 22:45 otavio Even if installer manual is not translated, this can bring up more attenting to what is done 22:45 otavio and what is míssing 22:45 bubulle I think it's OK to upload the d-i manual without the l10n during the development cycle This is literally *all* that was said about the installation guide. Those really are no more than very vague statements without any reasoning or backing in facts. Yes, so they don't imply any suboptimal handling of things now... To me it's in no way clear how _any_ of the three goals listed there would be served by more frequent uploads or skipping calls for translation updates before uploads. To me it mostly shows that neither Otavio nor Christian has any real idea of what they're talking about. I therefore think it's up to them to explain their reasoning. I think s/uploads/updates + uploads/ is what they had in mind. I also think the part about translation updates is only to not wait for them, not to just skip them. And really, it would help if people at least did some minimal research into how and why things are before suggesting random changes. I think you might jump to conclusions too fast, there was only an honest worry to keep the documentation as much as possible up-to-date AFAICS. And yes, asking _is_ allowed. But preferably in a neutral way _before_ implying that the current way things are done is incorrect or at least suboptimal. Right, though I don't think there was anything implied. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Complete draft of the March 16th and 30th meetings minutes
Christian Perrier wrote: Quoting Luk Claes (l...@debian.org): Improve udeb migration -- The release team is working on a migration script which, among other tasks, will implement dedicated features for udeb migration. It is not clear yet whether that script (or the udeb part) would need to run under the d-i account or not, but that will open perspectives of lowering the number of boring tasks to do in release preparation. This seems to be mixing two things: the migration script (which is better known as britney) and the udeb testing summary script. britney will be extended to support udebs, while the latter script will move from joeyh's homedir to release.debian.org to have a more up-to-date (only possible on ries) view as one of the outputs from britney probably. Revamped as: Good, looks much better. Improve udeb migration -- The release team is working on improvements to britney, the testing migration script which, among other tasks, will implement dedicated features for udeb migration. Simultaneously, the udeb testing summary script that lives in Joey Hess home directory [4] should be move to release.debian.org. be moved Should it be Joey Hess' or Joey Hess's ? Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: please approve / unblock pciutils/1:3.1.2-3 (udeb)
unblocked -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Please unblock dmraid/1.0.0.rc15-6 (udebs)
Giuseppe Iuculano wrote: Hi, Could you unblock dmraid/1.0.0.rc15-6 please? unblocked Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Complete draft of the March 16th and 30th meetings minutes
Christian Perrier wrote: Please comment and correct things if you feel like you have the courage to read all that logorrhea. Ok, I'll sometimes be a bit picky, though it's to have a better announcement :-) Subject: Bits from the Debian Installer team After the release of Lenny, for which the Debian Installer team felt proud for being a part of the techn[ical successbut also guilty for technical being one of the release delay factors, the team felt the need to virtually sit down and discuss about our future, organization and technical challenges for the Lenny-Squeeze release cycle. For this, we organized two team meetings that were held on March 16th 2009 and March 31st 2006 [1]. 2009 ... This Bits from the D-I team post represents the minutes of these two meetings and will summary decisions and discussions that happened summarise during the meetings. March 16th meeting: organisational issues - It is no mystery that the D-I team suffered from its low resources during the Etch-Lenny release cycle, particularlyvisible in particulary visible difficulties felt to handle the release management work (please refer to Nomvember 2008 meetings minutes). to the November 2008 meeting minutes It would be good to have a link here. As a consequence, the first satisfaction was having over 20 participants to the March 16th meeting and a very interactive and alive discussion. At the beginning of the meeting, a round table checkup confirmed that most participants were sharing that feeling. Nobody wanted to put any s/that/the above mentioned/ blame on our release manager (Otavio Salvador), except maybe Otavio himself. A certain lack of leadership is pointed, with indeed nobody pointed out really ready to take that leadership. To some extent, the leadership was shared between Otavio Salvador, Frans Pop and Christian Perrier, with sometimes obvious lack of real leadership. That also lead to some core components of D-I to be neglected in some way, though several team members did a great work maintaining them in releasable shape. On the other hand, the lack of developers was *also* pointed. Colin pointed out Watson noticeably insisted on the demotivation that can arise when most parts of D-I are frozen because of release preparation. That seems to have a high potential to demotivate potential participants to development. It was also pointed that former releases of D-I happened under a pointed out strong leadership by very involved, motivated people, who had a very noticeable amount of time to invest in these tasks (namely Joey Hess, then Frans Pop, who both lead the work and took the RM work in a similar way). That model reached its limits, apparently, when the release manager (who's seen as the leader) has a lower commitment reliability. As this is more likely than our previous situation, we need to learn about coping with that. The general conclusion is that we should try to have a clearer delineation between ongoing development and release-targeted work. Both need to happen and both should not conflict. In that matter, as we were able to release, what seems to be more missing is the technical leadership of the project, while the release manager remains the visible person. A general agreement is that Otavio had to spend too much time on technical work rather than focus on release priorities (building/uploading the kernel udebs is given as an example). Another agreement is that release preparation include a lot of work to coordinate, some of which could maybe be more automated (such as building more of D-I on the build daemons, running the daily builds in a more controlled environment or upload the debian-installer package more often...). Finally, after many discussions about various ways to take some load out of the RM shoulders, we settled on an organization where Otavio Salvador keeps working as D-I release manager, with some assistance during the release preparations: - Christian Perrier for all boring and tedious non technical tasks such as release announcement, web pages stuff, meeting organization (and reports, doh) - Luk Claes as dedicated link with the Debian Release Management and focusing on technical methods to take as much load as possible for the D-I RM - Jérémy Bobbio and Colin Watson as Backup experts option when tricky problems that might delay releases are identified Other widely accepted decisions were: - try having more technical leadership, not necessarily concentrated on the RM shoulders - do our best to avoid long freezes and keep the development pace active - try having development corners for our potential new contributors so that the team doesn't shrink down to the core team March 30th meeting: technical issues - release goals After the March 16th meeting
Re: Complete draft of the March 16th and 30th meetings minutes
Frans Pop wrote: On Monday 06 April 2009, Otavio Salvador wrote: It would be nice if you could clarify why do you believe it is nonsense. No thanks. I see no reason why _I_ should make that effort. Please stop that hostility. Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: please unblock freetype 2.3.9-4
Steve Langasek wrote: Hi, freetype 2.3.9-4 is ready to go into testing, but it includes a udeb. debian-boot, is this ok to update? unblocked Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: d-i lab
Otavio Salvador wrote: On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 3:12 AM, Christian Perrier bubu...@debian.org wrote: Quoting Otavio Salvador (ota...@ossystems.com.br): On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:42 PM, Joey Hess jo...@debian.org wrote: I'm sure it will suprise no one when I say that the d-i lab automatic test stuff I used to do is broken and rotting[1]. I don't think there's any point in keeping it going in its current state, so I plan to turn it off. I'd like to try to take the maintainence of it over if you accept it. I belive it is quite useful and I used it here at company and then I can try to make it work again. I won't be able to do that until began of April but if it is not a hurry to you, I can do that. Couldn't this be a good idea to propose to someone *else* who would like to contribute to D-I ? If someone else wants to take it, I'll be available to help to understand digress and like. If noone shows insterest, I prefer to do that then lose d-i lab. Thus, it would save *your* time to work on release management..:-) (ref: last team meeting...) Yes, that would be nice but someone needs to show interest on it. I would be happy to help out, though would prefer a team effort, what do you think? Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: upcoming point releases
Otavio Salvador wrote: Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes: Le dimanche 22 mars 2009 à 20:26 +0100, Luk Claes a écrit : Please have a look at the respective websites [0] [1] [2] for a more or less up-to-date status of the preparations. The installer team requested that gtk+ 2.12.12 made it soon enough for the d-i update, but I see it is still pending. Do you have any news about it? Yes SRM team, please handle it ASAP since we could get builds done in meanwhile for testing. It's built on all arches in the meantime, just needs to still get uploaded and installed for some. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Still daily build problems
Christian Perrier wrote: Quoting Luk Claes (l...@debian.org): Christian Perrier wrote: Quoting Luk Claes (l...@debian.org): I guess this got solved in the meantime? I'm afraid not. The following packages have unmet dependencies: cdebconf-gtk-terminal: Depends: libvte9 (= 1:0.17.1) but it is not installable E: Broken packages ...but the very same happens even after dropping packages from localudebs. Can you please have a look why libvte9 is not installable and verify that you are trying to install an up-to-date libvte9 (1:0.17.4-2+b1)? So, my problem is: what the hell could I do to have mr einformation about what makes the package uninstallable The easy way is to just showing what it wants to install and try to install it, output of the following commands: apt-cache policy libvte9 apt-get -s install libvte9 Though I guess the real problem migth be that it's not a udeb like Dato said? Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
