David Kalnischkies, le Thu 06 Sep 2012 16:49:55 +0200, a écrit :
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 12:07 AM, Samuel Thibault sthiba...@debian.org
wrote:
David Kalnischkies, le Thu 30 Aug 2012 19:43:21 +0200, a écrit :
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Julian Andres Klode j...@debian.org
wrote:
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 12:07 AM, Samuel Thibault sthiba...@debian.org wrote:
David Kalnischkies, le Thu 30 Aug 2012 19:43:21 +0200, a écrit :
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Julian Andres Klode j...@debian.org wrote:
We could add a switch to apt-cdrom to copy all configured locales for
d-i
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Julian Andres Klode j...@debian.org wrote:
We could add a switch to apt-cdrom to copy all configured locales for
d-i purposes,
The question is how apt-cdrom gets to know which locales are configured.
If I read the d-i syslog correctly apt-cdrom is run before
David Kalnischkies, le Thu 30 Aug 2012 19:43:21 +0200, a écrit :
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Julian Andres Klode j...@debian.org wrote:
We could add a switch to apt-cdrom to copy all configured locales for
d-i purposes,
The question is how apt-cdrom gets to know which locales are
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Samuel Thibault sthiba...@debian.org wrote:
Control: tags 641967 + important
Is closed for a long time now and unrelated in so far as nobody
is setting this variable - otherwise the auto-detection would not
play safe here. I am dropping the cc to it therefore.
David Kalnischkies, le Tue 28 Aug 2012 10:31:23 +0200, a écrit :
The issue also happens at debian-installer time, thus downloading way
(I don't know why an also is in that sentence …)
That's actually because 678227 is what made debian-boot consider the
issue quoted above already reported
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:47:43AM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
David Kalnischkies, le Tue 28 Aug 2012 10:31:23 +0200, a écrit :
The issue also happens at debian-installer time, thus downloading way
(I don't know why an also is in that sentence …)
That's actually because 678227 is
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 12:47:09 +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:47:43AM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
David Kalnischkies, le Tue 28 Aug 2012 10:31:23 +0200, a écrit :
The issue also happens at debian-installer time, thus downloading way
(I don't know
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 01:05:33PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 12:47:09 +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:47:43AM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
David Kalnischkies, le Tue 28 Aug 2012 10:31:23 +0200, a écrit :
The issue also happens
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 10:47:43 +0200
Samuel Thibault sthiba...@debian.org wrote:
more than necessary, and taking a lot of disk space (seen 82M here) for
no reason, thus moving the embedded barrier yet higher for Debian.
I would say that this is at best misdirection - there are numerous ways
Note that I have put quotes around embedded. I don't mean embedded as
in user-oriented devices, but anything that people use Debian to tinker
with: virtual machines, small routers, etc. We have already crossed the
512M barrier, if we could avoid the 1G barrier as long as easily
possible, that'd be
On 2012-08-27 13:43, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Control: tags 641967 + important
Control: tags 678227 + important
Hello,
The issue also happens at debian-installer time, thus downloading way
more than necessary, and taking a lot of disk space (seen 82M here) for
no reason, thus moving the embedded
Filipus Klutiero, le Mon 27 Aug 2012 17:42:05 -0400, a écrit :
On 2012-08-27 13:43, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Control: tags 641967 + important
Control: tags 678227 + important
Thanks Samuel, but I suppose you meant severity foo important.
Right, thanks :)
Samuel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
13 matches
Mail list logo
