Hi!
On 5/3/21 12:21 PM, Valentin Vidic wrote:
>>> I'd suggest at least retitling the bug report to mention s390x (release
>>> arch, affected) instead of sparc64 (port arch, no longer affected), to
>>> lower the chances people could overlook this issue, thinking it's only
>>> about a port arch.
>>
On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 08:58:02AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > The same issue exists on s390x but isn't apparently going to get fixed
> > so we need to have d-i be smarter (hence the merge request)?
>
> Seems so.
QEMU console might get fixed in the kernel, but it looks like LPAR
Hi!
On 5/3/21 8:36 AM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> From skimming through the bug log, it seems it was initially a sparc64
> problem, that was fixed in the kernel (inconsistent naming) eventually.
Correct.
> The same issue exists on s390x but isn't apparently going to get fixed
> so we need to have
Control: block 987441 by 926539
Control: block 987441 by 987788
Hi Valentin,
Thanks for your suggestions.
Valentin Vidic (2021-05-02):
> Probably not critical, but maybe these installation bugs on s390x
> could be fixed for the release?
>
> rootskel: steal-ctty no longer works on at least
4 matches
Mail list logo
