On Wed 07 Nov 2018 at 19:55:28 +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> Le 06/11/2018 à 20:17, Brian a écrit :
> > On Tue 06 Nov 2018 at 00:52:28 +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >
> > > If you're using a netinst, you're *really* expected to use a
> > > mirror. If you're not, you should know what you're
Le 06/11/2018 à 20:17, Brian a écrit :
On Tue 06 Nov 2018 at 00:52:28 +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
If you're using a netinst, you're *really* expected to use a
mirror. If you're not, you should know what you're doing to fix
any issues you find like this.
(...)
This issue is simply a bug and
On Tue 06 Nov 2018 at 00:52:28 +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> If you're using a netinst, you're *really* expected to use a
> mirror. If you're not, you should know what you're doing to fix
> any issues you find like this.
Section 6.3.5.1.2. of the Guide does say
> One question that will be
On Tue 06 Nov 2018 at 17:25:16 +, Curt wrote:
> On 2018-11-06, Michael Stone wrote:
> >
> > That said, the bootable business card image is the smallest download
> > available to install debian without having to mess with a netboot
> > configuration. You can still use the mini iso with a
On 2018-11-06, Michael Stone wrote:
>
> That said, the bootable business card image is the smallest download
> available to install debian without having to mess with a netboot
> configuration. You can still use the mini iso with a normal cd, or via
> virtual drive, etc. I used to always keep
On Tue 06 Nov 2018 at 09:19:22 -0500, David Wright wrote:
> On Tue 06 Nov 2018 at 09:57:03 (+), Brian wrote:
> > On Mon 05 Nov 2018 at 23:29:16 -0500, David Wright wrote:
> > > On Mon 05 Nov 2018 at 21:11:46 (+0100), Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> > >
> > > > PS : aren't you confusing "netinst"
On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 09:03:59AM +, Curt wrote:
I never knew what a bootable business card was so I avoided those.
If you trim a cd so it's rectangle you end up with a business-card size
disc which holds about 50MB. Their main drawbacks are that 1) nobody has
a cd drive anymore and 2)
On Tue 06 Nov 2018 at 09:57:03 (+), Brian wrote:
> On Mon 05 Nov 2018 at 23:29:16 -0500, David Wright wrote:
> > On Mon 05 Nov 2018 at 21:11:46 (+0100), Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> >
> > > PS : aren't you confusing "netinst" with "netboot", which requires a
> > > network connection to a mirror ?
On Mon 05 Nov 2018 at 23:29:16 -0500, David Wright wrote:
> On Mon 05 Nov 2018 at 21:11:46 (+0100), Pascal Hambourg wrote:
>
> > PS : aren't you confusing "netinst" with "netboot", which requires a
> > network connection to a mirror ?
>
> I've never used netboot as it's too complicated to
On 2018-11-06 09:03, Curt wrote:
On 2018-11-05, Michael Stone wrote:
On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 09:11:46PM +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
PS : aren't you confusing "netinst" with "netboot", which requires a
network connection to a mirror ?
There used to be bootable business card netinst images
On 2018-11-05, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 09:11:46PM +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
>>PS : aren't you confusing "netinst" with "netboot", which requires a
>>network connection to a mirror ?
>
> There used to be bootable business card netinst images that had almost
> nothing
On Mon 05 Nov 2018 at 21:11:46 (+0100), Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> Le 05/11/2018 à 16:51, David Wright a écrit :
> > On Sun 04 Nov 2018 at 16:53:19 (+0100), Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> > > Le 04/11/2018 à 16:44, David Wright a écrit :
> > > >
> > > > I was under the impression that "netinst" stood for
Pascal Hambourg wrote:
>Le 05/11/2018 à 22:23, Steve McIntyre a écrit :
>>
>> Sorry, netinsts are special - they only contain the installer and the
>> base system and a *very* limited set of extra packages that are
>> hand-configured.
>>
>> The base system will end up overlapping a little
Le 05/11/2018 à 22:23, Steve McIntyre a écrit :
Sorry, netinsts are special - they only contain the installer and the
base system and a *very* limited set of extra packages that are
hand-configured.
The base system will end up overlapping a little with Priority:
standard (the 43 you've seen).
Michael Stone wrote:
>On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 09:11:46PM +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
>>PS : aren't you confusing "netinst" with "netboot", which requires a
>>network connection to a mirror ?
>
>There used to be bootable business card netinst images that had almost
>nothing other than the
Pascal Hambourg wrote:
>Le 04/11/2018 à 14:52, Steve McIntyre a écrit :
>> Pascal Hambourg wrote:
>> In article you write:
>>> Le 04/11/2018 à01:23, Steve McIntyre a écrità:
As I just wrote elsewhere, it looks like a bug in
the security.d.o infrastructure. I'm chasing
On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 09:11:46PM +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
PS : aren't you confusing "netinst" with "netboot", which requires a
network connection to a mirror ?
There used to be bootable business card netinst images that had almost
nothing other than the kernel and the installer, and
dpchr...@holgerdanske.com wrote:
>On 11/4/18 5:45 AM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>>
>>> That is https://bugs.debian.org/867668.
>>
>> Yup. That's just been confirmed in #debian-ftp:
>>
>> 2018-11-04 13:41 GMT < waldi> found it. only new overrides are synced, not
>> existing updated
>>
>> There
Le 05/11/2018 à 16:51, David Wright a écrit :
On Sun 04 Nov 2018 at 16:53:19 (+0100), Pascal Hambourg wrote:
Le 04/11/2018 à 16:44, David Wright a écrit :
I was under the impression that "netinst" stood for "network installer",
so the image only contains what's essential to bootstrap a
On Mon 05 Nov 2018 at 10:51:34 -0500, David Wright wrote:
> On Sun 04 Nov 2018 at 16:53:19 (+0100), Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> > Le 04/11/2018 à 16:44, David Wright a écrit :
> > > On Sun 04 Nov 2018 at 15:51:21 (+0100), Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> > > > Le 04/11/2018 à 14:52, Steve McIntyre a écrit :
On Sun 04 Nov 2018 at 16:53:19 (+0100), Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> Le 04/11/2018 à 16:44, David Wright a écrit :
> > On Sun 04 Nov 2018 at 15:51:21 (+0100), Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> > > Le 04/11/2018 à 14:52, Steve McIntyre a écrit :
> > > > Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you mean
On 11/4/18 5:45 AM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Sven wrote:
On 2018-11-04 00:19 +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
which suggests there may be a problem with overrides in the security
archive. The overrides file for security isn't available to look at
directly to check...
Is there even an override file
On Sun 04 Nov 2018 at 16:53:19 +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> Le 04/11/2018 à 16:44, David Wright a écrit :
> > On Sun 04 Nov 2018 at 15:51:21 (+0100), Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> > > Le 04/11/2018 à 14:52, Steve McIntyre a écrit :
> > > > Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you mean
Le 04/11/2018 à 16:44, David Wright a écrit :
On Sun 04 Nov 2018 at 15:51:21 (+0100), Pascal Hambourg wrote:
Le 04/11/2018 à 14:52, Steve McIntyre a écrit :
Pascal Hambourg wrote:
Do you mean that all packages with Priority: standard and their
dependencies are supposed to be present in
On Sun 04 Nov 2018 at 15:51:21 (+0100), Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> Le 04/11/2018 à 14:52, Steve McIntyre a écrit :
> > Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> > In article you write:
> > > Le 04/11/2018 à 01:23, Steve McIntyre a écrit :
> > > >
> > > > As I just wrote elsewhere, it looks like a bug in
> > > >
Le 04/11/2018 à 14:52, Steve McIntyre a écrit :
Pascal Hambourg wrote:
In article you write:
Le 04/11/2018 à 01:23, Steve McIntyre a écrit :
As I just wrote elsewhere, it looks like a bug in
the security.d.o infrastructure. I'm chasing that now.
Do you mean that all packages with
On Sat 03 Nov 2018 at 19:02:50 -0700, David Christensen wrote:
> On 11/3/18 1:35 PM, Brian wrote:
> > On Sat 03 Nov 2018 at 12:29:15 -0700, David Christensen wrote:
> >
> > > On 11/3/18 8:35 AM, Brian wrote:
> > > > On Fri 02 Nov 2018 at 20:01:59 -0700, David Christensen wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
Pascal Hambourg wrote:
In article you write:
>Le 04/11/2018 à 01:23, Steve McIntyre a écrit :
>>
>> As I just wrote elsewhere, it looks like a bug in
>> the security.d.o infrastructure. I'm chasing that now.
>
>Do you mean that all packages with Priority: standard and their
>dependencies are
Sven wrote:
>On 2018-11-04 00:19 +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>
>> which suggests there may be a problem with overrides in the security
>> archive. The overrides file for security isn't available to look at
>> directly to check...
>
>Is there even an override file on security.debian.org, or uses
On Sat, Nov 03, 2018 at 07:04:00PM -0700, David Christensen wrote:
On 11/3/18 1:41 PM, Michael Stone wrote:
On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 08:01:59PM -0700, David Christensen wrote:
My intent was to install just what was on the CD onto a machine in
my LAN. I was unaware that d-i connected to the
On 2018-11-04 00:19 +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Right. But if you compare the metdata for mutt in the relevant
> Packages files, there is a mismatch. From current stable:
>
> Package: mutt
> Version: 1.7.2-1
> Installed-Size: 6104
> Maintainer: Mutt maintainers
> Architecture: amd64
> ...
>
Le 04/11/2018 à 01:23, Steve McIntyre a écrit :
As I just wrote elsewhere, it looks like a bug in
the security.d.o infrastructure. I'm chasing that now.
Do you mean that all packages with Priority: standard and their
dependencies are supposed to be present in installation CD images ?
On 11/3/18 5:23 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
And it's clearly not obvious to all users that security.d.o will be
automatically added just because the new installation can see a
network. It makes sense from a security POV, but...
+1
I view the fact that the d-i couldn't obtain a security update
On 11/3/18 1:41 PM, Michael Stone wrote:
On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 08:01:59PM -0700, David Christensen wrote:
My intent was to install just what was on the CD onto a machine in my
LAN. I was unaware that d-i connected to the Internet when I told it
not to use a mirror. As security.debian.org
On 11/3/18 1:35 PM, Brian wrote:
On Sat 03 Nov 2018 at 12:29:15 -0700, David Christensen wrote:
On 11/3/18 8:35 AM, Brian wrote:
On Fri 02 Nov 2018 at 20:01:59 -0700, David Christensen wrote:
On 11/2/18 5:17 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
My intent was to install just what was on the CD onto
Brian wrote:
>On Sat 03 Nov 2018 at 12:29:15 -0700, David Christensen wrote:
>> On 11/3/18 8:35 AM, Brian wrote:
>> > On Fri 02 Nov 2018 at 20:01:59 -0700, David Christensen wrote:
>> >
>> > > On 11/2/18 5:17 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> >
>> > > My intent was to install just what was on the CD
Brian wrote:
>On Sun 04 Nov 2018 at 00:20:27 +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
>
>> Le 03/11/2018 à 21:24, Brian a écrit :
>> > On Sat 03 Nov 2018 at 19:40:14 +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
>> > >
>> > > It appears that the latest update gave mutt "standard" priority back.
>> > >
>> > > Package: mutt
On Sun 04 Nov 2018 at 00:20:27 +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> Le 03/11/2018 à 21:24, Brian a écrit :
> > On Sat 03 Nov 2018 at 19:40:14 +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> > >
> > > It appears that the latest update gave mutt "standard" priority back.
> > >
> > > Package: mutt
> > > Version:
Le 03/11/2018 à 21:24, Brian a écrit :
On Sat 03 Nov 2018 at 19:40:14 +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
It appears that the latest update gave mutt "standard" priority back.
Package: mutt
Version: 1.7.2-1+deb9u1
(...)
Priority: standard
Package: mutt
Version: 1.7.2-1
(...)
Priority: optional
On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 08:01:59PM -0700, David Christensen wrote:
My intent was to install just what was on the CD onto a machine in my
LAN. I was unaware that d-i connected to the Internet when I told it
not to use a mirror. As security.debian.org is not a mirror in the
usual sense,
On Sat 03 Nov 2018 at 12:29:15 -0700, David Christensen wrote:
> On 11/3/18 8:35 AM, Brian wrote:
> > On Fri 02 Nov 2018 at 20:01:59 -0700, David Christensen wrote:
> >
> > > On 11/2/18 5:17 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >
> > > My intent was to install just what was on the CD onto a machine in
On Sat 03 Nov 2018 at 19:40:14 +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> Le 03/11/2018 à 16:35, Brian a écrit :
> >
> > There is no defect in the security package distribution chain. mutt is
> > not part of the Xfce or standard utilities tasks. The installer had no
> > business attempting to install it.
>
On 11/3/18 8:35 AM, Brian wrote:
On Fri 02 Nov 2018 at 20:01:59 -0700, David Christensen wrote:
On 11/2/18 5:17 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
My intent was to install just what was on the CD onto a machine in my LAN.
I was unaware that d-i connected to the Internet when I told it not to use a
Le 03/11/2018 à 16:35, Brian a écrit :
There is no defect in the security package distribution chain. mutt is
not part of the Xfce or standard utilities tasks. The installer had no
business attempting to install it.
It appears that the latest update gave mutt "standard" priority back.
On Sat 03 Nov 2018 at 00:17:38 +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
[Snip]
> *However*, the installer has automatically added security.debian.org
> to the sources.list of the new system and peformed an "apt-get
> update". This found a security update for mutt, and mutt is Priority:
> standard so tasksel
On Fri 02 Nov 2018 at 20:01:59 -0700, David Christensen wrote:
> On 11/2/18 5:17 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
[Snip]
> > That's how this becomes a problem. For now, if you have security
> > updates installed then you'll need to enable a mirror or start with a
> > larger installation CD. Sorry...
On Sat 03 Nov 2018 at 00:17:38 +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
[Snip]
> *However*, the installer has automatically added security.debian.org
> to the sources.list of the new system and peformed an "apt-get
> update". This found a security update for mutt, and mutt is Priority:
> standard so tasksel
Le 03/11/2018 à 12:47, Michael Stone a écrit :
On Sat, Nov 03, 2018 at 10:04:00AM +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
Also, if you install from an old image, adding only the security
archive may miss security updates which have been moved to the main
archive. This gives a false sense of security.
On Sat, Nov 03, 2018 at 10:04:00AM +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
Also, if you install
from an old image, adding only the security archive may miss security
updates which have been moved to the main archive. This gives a false
sense of security.
I don't think anything is actually removed from
Le 03/11/2018 à 04:01, David Christensen a écrit :
On 11/2/18 5:17 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
There is a bug here, and I think it's possibly in tasksel. Mutt is not
on the installation CD, and neither are its dependencies libgpgme11
and libnotmuch4.
*However*, the installer has automatically
On 11/2/18 5:17 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
dpchr...@holgerdanske.com wrote:
debian-users:
I downloaded debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso several months ago via:
https://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current/amd64/jigdo-cd/
- image sounds ok.
- basic d-i setup
It fails with a pop-up
dpchr...@holgerdanske.com wrote:
>debian-users:
>
>I downloaded debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso several months ago via:
>
>https://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current/amd64/jigdo-cd/
- image sounds ok.
- basic d-i setup
>It fails with a pop-up dialog:
>
> [!] Select and install
52 matches
Mail list logo
