Hello all,
On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 13:17:32 +0100 Steve McIntyre wrote:
*In the installer*, we're not seeing *any* "change" events for the
hard disk (vda in my case), in either stretch or buster. We just get
the "add" and "remove" events. In the buster installer, my temporary
hack of forcing the
Processing control commands:
> found -1 232-25+deb9u12
Bug #958397 [udev-udeb] Missing 60-block.rules breaks grub-installer
Marked as found in versions systemd/232-25+deb9u12.
> unarchive 852323
Bug #852323 {Done: Steve McIntyre <93...@debian.org>} [debian-installer]
debian-installer:
Hello,
I recently installed Debian testing from here¹.
Weekly build (2020-04-13), netiso, 64 bits, bare minimal installation
(just the base system).
I always go with expert installation because it better fits my needs.
Anyway, here are some suggestions for the installer:
1. While WiFi
On 20/04/2020 20:22, Steve McIntyre wrote:
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 07:36:42PM +0300, Alper Nebi Yasak wrote:
On 20/04/2020 18:38, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Does /dev/tty0 show up in /proc/consoles in your setup? We might need
to tweak that yet...
Here is a small but untested patch for rootskel's
On 2020-04-21 14:14 +0300, Alper Nebi Yasak wrote:
>
> IMO, the right answer is "tty0 not even being in /proc/consoles in this case
> (where it should've also been the /dev/console) is a kernel bug".
This is my opinion too, although I'm prepared to change it if someone
can given a good reason
On 20/04/2020 20:01, Steve McIntyre wrote:
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 03:43:57PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Try the image at
http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/arm64-gi/
please?
OK, so this lot seems to work in a VM at least (thanks Marcin!), so
I've pushed this set of patches to
Hey Pascal,
Awesome work on tracking this down!
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 03:19:36PM +0200, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
>Package: udev-udeb
>Version: 241-7~deb10u3
>Control: found -1 232-25+deb9u12
>Control: unarchive 852323
>X-Debbugs-CC: st...@einval.com
>
>Hello,
>
>Udev has a rule with
On Apr 21, Michael Biebl wrote:
> We'd probably have to check them, if e.g. they need special system
> groups, call external tools etc.
> The udev-udeb (and initramfs-tools integration) was mostly taken over
> as-is from the old udev package. So Marco might know more why the
> initramfs hook and
Am 21.04.2020 um 16:34 schrieb Steve McIntyre:
> To be honest, I'm curious if there's a good reason to not just include
> all the udeb rules files in the udev-udeb package? That would fix this
I guess you meant udev rules files.
> bug and save us from any potential future possible reshuffles.
9 matches
Mail list logo
