Your message dated Wed, 08 Sep 2010 03:57:39 +
with message-id e1otbn1-00042k...@ravel.debian.org
and subject line Closing old installation report #272624
has caused the Debian Bug report #272624,
regarding No HFS driver, and change install priority menu option missing
-- and other bugs
On Friday 01 October 2004 9:40, Roman Zippel wrote:
Rick Thomas wrote:
When one mounts an hfs filesystem under 2.4, there are a bunch of
pseudo-directories with names beginning with a . that give you access
to the finder info and the resource forks of all the files.
You can access the
On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 04:33:47PM -0400, Rick_Thomas wrote:
On Thu, 2004-09-30 at 05:18, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 11:11:49PM -0400, Rick Thomas wrote:
Now, is the loss under 2.6 of the HFS .finderinfo and .resource
pseudo-directories a bug, or a feature?
You
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004, Rick_Thomas wrote:
On Thu, 2004-09-30 at 05:18, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 11:11:49PM -0400, Rick Thomas wrote:
Now, is the loss under 2.6 of the HFS .finderinfo and .resource
pseudo-directories a bug, or a feature?
You probably need to load the
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 09:56:37AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004, Rick_Thomas wrote:
On Thu, 2004-09-30 at 05:18, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 11:11:49PM -0400, Rick Thomas wrote:
Now, is the loss under 2.6 of the HFS .finderinfo and .resource
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, Sven Luther wrote:
Geert, you can probably help us here, the current scenario is :
- 2.4 floppies, either work fine, the frambuffer takes over and we see the
kernel boot info, or fail because of miboot problems, and we see a red
cross over the miboot stuff.
Who
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 11:07:18AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Thanks for the info. Keep in mind i am w total neophyte about HFS filesystems.
I suppose we would need to bring the HFS driver in 2.6 upto speed, or create
an HFS+ filesystem instead.
I can understand. Apple has always been a little
Hi,
Rick Thomas wrote:
When one mounts an hfs filesystem under 2.4, there are a bunch of
pseudo-directories with names beginning with a . that give you access
to the finder info and the resource forks of all the files.
You can access the resource via file/rsrc. I have a patch to export
some
On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 11:11:49PM -0400, Rick Thomas wrote:
I think I've just discovered a major difference between the hfs
implementation in 2.4 and that in 2.6.
When one mounts an hfs filesystem under 2.4, there are a bunch of
pseudo-directories with names beginning with a . that give
On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 11:11:49PM -0400, Rick Thomas wrote:
On Wednesday, September 29, 2004, at 01:30 PM, Holger Levsen wrote:
Hi,
However... There is one important thing missing from the boot
disks. Specifically, the System file is zero length. This is
true of both boot and
On Thu, 2004-09-30 at 05:18, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 11:11:49PM -0400, Rick Thomas wrote:
Now, is the loss under 2.6 of the HFS .finderinfo and .resource
pseudo-directories a bug, or a feature?
You probably need to load the hfs+ driver ?
If that doesn't solve it for
On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 01:25:22AM -0400, Rick Thomas wrote:
On Saturday, September 25, 2004, at 04:49 PM, Colin Watson wrote:
After my changes,
there's *loads* of room left for things. We were just being
inefficient,
that's all.
Well,
I just took a look at the latest floppy
Hi,
However... There is one important thing missing from the boot
disks. Specifically, the System file is zero length. This is
true of both boot and ofonlyboot for both 2.4 and 2.6. It won't
boot that way.
Arg, again. I have to checkup and see what is missing in the build process,
On Wednesday, September 29, 2004, at 01:30 PM, Holger Levsen wrote:
Hi,
However... There is one important thing missing from the boot
disks. Specifically, the System file is zero length. This is
true of both boot and ofonlyboot for both 2.4 and 2.6. It won't
boot that way.
Arg, again. I have to
On Saturday, September 25, 2004, at 04:49 PM, Colin Watson wrote:
After my changes,
there's *loads* of room left for things. We were just being
inefficient,
that's all.
Well,
I just took a look at the latest floppy images. It looks like
everything that's there fits with room to spare -- in some
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 01:50:34AM -0400, Rick Thomas wrote:
ROOT-2) The root-2 floppy is a bunch of udebs for all the
components that wouldn't fit on root. [This is a good design,
but it requires that root have everything needed to install a
udeb, making the root floppy even more
On Saturday, September 25, 2004, at 04:13 AM, Colin Watson wrote:
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 01:50:34AM -0400, Rick Thomas wrote:
ROOT-2) The root-2 floppy is a bunch of udebs for all the
components that wouldn't fit on root. [This is a good design,
but it requires that root have everything needed
On Sat, Sep 25, 2004 at 03:19:20PM -0400, Rick Thomas wrote:
On Saturday, September 25, 2004, at 04:13 AM, Colin Watson wrote:
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 01:50:34AM -0400, Rick Thomas wrote:
ROOT-2) The root-2 floppy is a bunch of udebs for all the
components that wouldn't fit on root. [This is
On Saturday, September 25, 2004, at 04:49 PM, Colin Watson wrote:
Bringing things back into sync with other architectures is worth it on
its own, and reducing the number of floppies required for an
installation was one of the original goals of d-i. After my changes,
there's *loads* of room left
On Thursday, September 23, 2004, at 06:13 PM, Sven Luther wrote:
I wrote:
I understand the size constraints. But isn't that the reason why
we added the root-2 floppy? Would adding hfs and/or hfsplus kick
us over the edge into root-3 land?
We could indeed add it to root-2, but i would prefer to
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004, Rick Thomas wrote:
On Thursday, September 23, 2004, at 06:13 PM, Sven Luther wrote:
I wrote:
I understand the size constraints. But isn't that the reason why
we added the root-2 floppy? Would adding hfs and/or hfsplus kick
us over the edge into root-3 land?
Hi,
Rick Thomas writes:
Actually, it's quite useful -- for writing to mac-formatted (HFS)
floppy disks... as in for saving the log files for later debugging
when all else has failed.
For that kind of thing, I wouldn't bother with filesystems, and just
dd or tar to the raw medium.
Regards,
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 01:50:34AM -0400, Rick Thomas wrote:
On Thursday, September 23, 2004, at 06:45 PM, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 06:30:48PM -0400, Rick Thomas wrote:
On Thursday, September 23, 2004, at 06:13 PM, Sven Luther wrote:
I understand the size constraints.
On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 05:05:58PM -0400, Rick Thomas wrote:
Package: installation-reports
In addition to the already noted problems with 2.4 PowerPC boot
floppies, I have two requests for modules to be included on the
root or root-2:
Ok, actually following up on this from Oldenbourg with
On Thursday, September 23, 2004, at 11:02 AM, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 05:05:58PM -0400, Rick Thomas wrote:
Package: installation-reports
In addition to the already noted problems with 2.4 PowerPC boot
floppies, I have two requests for modules to be included on the
root or
On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 01:40:36PM -0400, Rick Thomas wrote:
On Thursday, September 23, 2004, at 11:02 AM, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 05:05:58PM -0400, Rick Thomas wrote:
Package: installation-reports
In addition to the already noted problems with 2.4 PowerPC boot
On Thursday, September 23, 2004, at 06:13 PM, Sven Luther wrote:
I understand the size constraints. But isn't that the reason why
we added the root-2 floppy? Would adding hfs and/or hfsplus kick
us over the edge into root-3 land?
We could indeed add it to root-2, but i would prefer to get the
On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 06:30:48PM -0400, Rick Thomas wrote:
On Thursday, September 23, 2004, at 06:13 PM, Sven Luther wrote:
I understand the size constraints. But isn't that the reason why
we added the root-2 floppy? Would adding hfs and/or hfsplus kick
us over the edge into root-3
On Thursday, September 23, 2004, at 06:45 PM, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 06:30:48PM -0400, Rick Thomas wrote:
On Thursday, September 23, 2004, at 06:13 PM, Sven Luther wrote:
I understand the size constraints. But isn't that the reason why
we added the root-2 floppy? Would adding
Package: installation-reports
In addition to the already noted problems with 2.4 PowerPC boot
floppies, I have two requests for modules to be included on the
root or root-2:
1) The change installation priority menu item should be available
*very* early in the install process. Best would be
30 matches
Mail list logo
