Joey Hess jo...@debian.org writes:
Bdale Garbee wrote:
patch d-i to build successfully against the syslinux in sid
syslinux is GPL'd, so this would result in shipping d-i images in wheezy
which contain a GPL'd binary for which there is no source in wheezy.
My unstated assumption was
Hi,
On 08/02/13 20:52, Bdale Garbee wrote:
Joey Hess jo...@debian.org writes:
syslinux is GPL'd, so this would result in shipping d-i images in wheezy
which contain a GPL'd binary for which there is no source in wheezy.
My unstated assumption was that if d-i were able to successfully build
Daniel Baumann daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net (07/02/2013):
On 02/07/2013 08:12 AM, Michael Biebl wrote:
This list is getting longer with each email. Seeing that syslinux 5 has
been in sid for less then 10 days, I'm worried what other issues might
show up.
apart from the two
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 08:30:35AM +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote:
On 02/07/2013 08:12 AM, Michael Biebl wrote:
This list is getting longer with each email. Seeing that syslinux 5 has
been in sid for less then 10 days, I'm worried what other issues might
show up.
apart from the two obvious
Hi,
On Wed, 06 Feb 2013, Bdale Garbee wrote:
two at a time. Holding d-i's build dependencies static in unstable for
more than half a year is just nuts to me! Sure seems like d-i is
something we should build using the components of the release it will be
contained in and not unstable... but
i'm not commenting on unfair accusations, so only to the relevant part:
On 02/07/2013 09:00 AM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
again, note that any other virtualization software, be it in wheezy
directly (qemu, kvm) or otherwise (parallels, vmware) which i've
tested with, has no bugs with syslinux 5.
Daniel Baumann daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net (07/02/2013):
i'm not commenting on unfair accusations, so only to the relevant part:
On 02/07/2013 09:00 AM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
again, note that any other virtualization software, be it in wheezy
directly (qemu, kvm) or otherwise
On 02/07/2013 09:59 AM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
That doesn't
mean we should be keeping syslinux 5 in sid in the meanwhile, especially
since that's preventing us from releasing d-i wheezy rc1.
(ftr) which is where i disagree, with the mentioned patch against d-i
and debian-cd, you can release
On Thu, 07 Feb 2013, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
on the mirror and not in the package repository (the installer directories
are shared between wheezy and sid).
Cyril pointed out to me that this specific point is wrong, while
wheezy/main/installer-* and unstable/main/installer-* have the same
content
Daniel Baumann daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net (07/02/2013):
(ftr) which is where i disagree, with the mentioned patch against
d-i and debian-cd, you can release d-i wheezy rc1, even with
syslinux 5.x in sid.
even more so: since steve uses a local copy of syslinux anyway
(judging
On 02/07/2013 09:31, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Technically d-i point release updates are built in
stable-proposed-updates and build dependencies are satisfied in stable
(+ s-p-u maybe). Similarly it should be possible to build d-i for wheezy
in testing-proposed-updates right now (and have
On 02/07/2013 10:27 AM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
That means at least broken mini.iso, which is totally unacceptable.
broken without the patch i send for debian-installer, yes.
therefore, right now, even without any patches, the only actually
affected things are the images within the
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 07:52:13AM +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote:
consider such a misfeature to be in critical need of a fix (iirc
steve puts a local copy of the 'to be used' syslinux version to be
used by debian-cd for release images manually on the local fs; not
sure about the same that ends up
Daniel Baumann daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net (07/02/2013):
On 02/07/2013 10:27 AM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
That means at least broken mini.iso, which is totally unacceptable.
broken without the patch i send for debian-installer, yes.
If that can't be used with virtualbox (and we
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 10:15:42AM +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote:
On 02/07/2013 09:59 AM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
That doesn't
mean we should be keeping syslinux 5 in sid in the meanwhile, especially
since that's preventing us from releasing d-i wheezy rc1.
(ftr) which is where i disagree, with the
On 02/07/2013 10:53 AM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
If that can't be used with virtualbox (and we already established
that, thanks to Michael's testing), that means it's broken with your
patch too.
as already elaborated, the bug in vbox needs to be fixed anyway,
regardless what version of syslinux
Daniel Baumann, le Thu 07 Feb 2013 11:08:55 +0100, a écrit :
i've already made the case why i want newer syslinux in sid,
I must have missed that, and I can't find it on either bug #699382,
699742 or 699808.
Samuel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a
On 02/07/2013 11:17 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
I must have missed that, and I can't find it on either bug #699382,
699742 or 699808.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=699808#10
--
Address:Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH-3012 Bern
Email:
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 11:08:55AM +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote:
i'm argueing for either an explicit unfrozen sid or an explicit
frozen sid. since it's neither right now, and you intend to
overwrite the maintainers decision via CTTE to upload newer syslinux
to sid, you need to argue against it,
Bdale Garbee wrote:
Sure seems like d-i is something we should build using the components
of the release it will be contained in and not unstable... but I
haven't tried to think hard about what that might imply that's
problematic. And I certainly don't think this is something we should
even
Steve McIntyre wrote:
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 07:52:13AM +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote:
consider such a misfeature to be in critical need of a fix (iirc
steve puts a local copy of the 'to be used' syslinux version to be
used by debian-cd for release images manually on the local fs; not
sure
Bdale Garbee wrote:
patch d-i to build successfully against the syslinux in sid
syslinux is GPL'd, so this would result in shipping d-i images in wheezy
which contain a GPL'd binary for which there is no source in wheezy.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Joey Hess jo...@debian.org (07/02/2013):
This can be done easily, just upload d-i to t-p-u. d-i uploads are
already built with udebs from testing, for similar reasons.
There seems to be an unholy fear of using t-p-u for anything these days,
which I don't really understand. Even when not
On 02/07/2013 02:14 PM, Joey Hess wrote:
Howver, that is not the only image provided by Debian that uses
syslinux. The d-i mini.iso is another one, which uses the syslinux
provided by d-i's Build-Depedency, ie the one from unstable.
that has already been discussed in earlier messages.
--
Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Joey Hess jo...@debian.org (07/02/2013):
This can be done easily, just upload d-i to t-p-u. d-i uploads are
already built with udebs from testing, for similar reasons.
There seems to be an unholy fear of using t-p-u for anything these days,
which I don't really
On 07.02.2013 14:46, Joey Hess wrote:
Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Joey Hess jo...@debian.org (07/02/2013):
This can be done easily, just upload d-i to t-p-u. d-i uploads are
already built with udebs from testing, for similar reasons.
There seems to be an unholy fear of using t-p-u for anything
On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 01:48:22PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
the background for this request can be found in bug#699382. Here are
the highlights:
- the debian-installer source package, which builds the installer images
for debian's releases, build-depends on syslinux
- the release
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 01:55:11AM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
On a personal note, I'm unsure how we came up with a situation where a
single maintainer can *actively* stall a release… Not caring about the
release process put into place years ago is a thing. Stopping people
from fixing
Colin Watson writes (Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release):
But I do think that the syslinux maintainer
should revert to 4.x in unstable; I'd rather that be voluntary but I'd
be willing to vote to overrule if need be.
From what I've read so far I tend to agree.
In Julien's
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 04:26:49PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
How about this for a disposal:
I would vote for the below with reservation or modifications. Thanks for
drafting this, Ian.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
How about this for a disposal:
Works for me. Thank you!
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?
On 08.02.2013 03:16, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 04:26:49PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
How about this for a disposal:
I would vote for the below with reservation or modifications. Thanks
for
drafting this, Ian.
Is there an out missing in the first sentence? (If not, what
On 05.02.2013 23:55, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 06 Feb 2013, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Daniel Baumann daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net
(05/02/2013):
or:
* apply the following tested and working patch from #699742 in
debian-installer, […]
Except that this “tested and working
On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 01:48:22PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
The submitters sincerely hope that all parties can work together for a
speedy resolution to this problem, avoiding further delay to this
release.
As a possibly useful data point for procedural reasons: I've verified on
IRC with
On 5 February 2013 22:48, Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org wrote:
Package: tech-ctte
- the debian-installer source package, which builds the installer images
for debian's releases, build-depends on syslinux
- the release freeze for wheezy started in June 2012, and is now in its
final
On 06.02.2013 14:17, Anthony Towns wrote:
On 5 February 2013 22:48, Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org wrote:
Package: tech-ctte
- the debian-installer source package, which builds the installer
images
for debian's releases, build-depends on syslinux
- the release freeze for wheezy
On 02/06/2013 12:55 AM, Don Armstrong wrote:
Is it the intention of the Release Managers not to accept a newer
version of syslinux into wheezy? [That is, if the CTTE were to decide
to require some fix to d-i, we'd also have to override the RMs?]
jftr, i never did nor intended to ask for having
On Tue, 05 Feb 2013, Julien Cristau wrote:
- the latest of these uploads breaks the installer, making it
impossible to build and upload the planned wheezy release
candidate, since build-dependencies are fetched from unstable
- when asked to revert this change, the syslinux maintainer
On Wed, 06 Feb 2013, Russ Allbery wrote:
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes:
Assuming that the patch for #699742[0] fixes this issue with DI RC
releases being installed, is there still an outstanding issue for the
CTTE?
Earlier in this thread, there had been a couple of reports that
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
In practice, at least for the last couple of release cycles, we freeze
unstable for non-leaf packages during the release freeze because otherwise
it's too difficult with our current infrastructure to finish the
release.
I personally consider this a
Bdale Garbee bd...@gag.com writes:
I personally consider this a regrettable situation, and hope that for
jessie and beyond we can work out how to do this better. It is
unacceptable to me to freeze anything in sid for more than a week or
two at a time. Holding d-i's build dependencies static
On 06.02.2013 23:22, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 06 Feb 2013, Russ Allbery wrote:
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes:
Assuming that the patch for #699742[0] fixes this issue with DI RC
releases being installed, is there still an outstanding issue for the
CTTE?
Earlier in this thread,
Bdale Garbee bd...@gag.com (06/02/2013):
I personally consider this a regrettable situation, and hope that for
jessie and beyond we can work out how to do this better. It is
unacceptable to me to freeze anything in sid for more than a week or
two at a time. Holding d-i's build dependencies
Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org writes:
Bdale Garbee bd...@gag.com (06/02/2013):
I personally consider this a regrettable situation, and hope that for
jessie and beyond we can work out how to do this better. It is
unacceptable to me to freeze anything in sid for more than a week or
two at a
On 02/06/2013 11:48 PM, Michael Biebl wrote:
Unfortunately the second patch doesn't work either. See [1].
that is incorrect; the patch works, it's just the old vbox version in
current debian testing/sid which has a bug (try the image on real
hardware or any other virtualization and it
On 07.02.2013 07:30, Daniel Baumann wrote:
On 02/06/2013 11:48 PM, Michael Biebl wrote:
Unfortunately the second patch doesn't work either. See [1].
that is incorrect; the patch works, it's just the old vbox version in
current debian testing/sid which has a bug (try the image on real
On 02/07/2013 07:35 AM, Michael Tokarev wrote:
This makes me wonder what other components are also buggy somehow and
needs to be updated?
first, this is a specific bug in vbox that was fixed some time ago but
didn't make it into debian yet (because it lags a significant amount of
upstream
On 07.02.2013 07:58, Daniel Baumann wrote:
On 02/07/2013 07:45 AM, Michael Biebl wrote:
Well, VBOX is pretty popular, so shipping an installer which doesn't
work for such an environment is certainly a no-go.
again, the syslinux in sid would not be in wheezy. making it a
*temporary* problem
On 02/07/2013 07:55 AM, Michael Biebl wrote:
I think it is obvious by now that reverting to syslinux 4 from wheezy is
the only sensible way forward at this point in the release.
'obvious'?
it requires two straight forward things, that, again, as said, are
required to be applied for jessie
sorry, forgot to put in the links to the patches..
On 02/07/2013 08:06 AM, Daniel Baumann wrote:
* patch applied against debian-installer to include the additionally
required .c32 modules when using vesamenu.c32
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=699742#30
* patch
On 07.02.2013 08:06, Daniel Baumann wrote:
On 02/07/2013 07:55 AM, Michael Biebl wrote:
I think it is obvious by now that reverting to syslinux 4 from wheezy is
the only sensible way forward at this point in the release.
'obvious'?
Imho, yes. But then, it's not up to me to decide.
*
On 02/07/2013 08:12 AM, Michael Biebl wrote:
This list is getting longer with each email. Seeing that syslinux 5 has
been in sid for less then 10 days, I'm worried what other issues might
show up.
apart from the two obvious things (debian-installer and debian-cd) that
do need to be updated to
Package: tech-ctte
[cc to syslinux maintainer, debian-release, debian-boot, leader]
Hi,
the background for this request can be found in bug#699382. Here are
the highlights:
- the debian-installer source package, which builds the installer images
for debian's releases, build-depends on
or:
* apply the following tested and working patch from #699742 in
debian-installer, consisting of this ('trimmed' output rather than
full-diff):
---snip---
+if [ -e /usr/lib/syslinux/ldlinux.c32 ]; then \
+ mcopy -i$(TEMP_BOOT) /usr/lib/syslinux/ldlinux.c32 ::ldlinux.c32; \
+
Daniel Baumann daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net (05/02/2013):
or:
* apply the following tested and working patch from #699742 in
debian-installer, […]
Except that this “tested and working patch” doesn't fix anything. Same
issue, as seen by Michael and myself.
KiBi.
On Wed, 06 Feb 2013, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Daniel Baumann daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net (05/02/2013):
or:
* apply the following tested and working patch from #699742 in
debian-installer, […]
Except that this “tested and working patch” doesn't fix anything. Same
56 matches
Mail list logo
