On Saturday 20 January 2007 09:05, Eddy Petrișor wrote:
> Frans Pop wrote:
> > Instead of 'db_go || exit 30' it is probably better to use 'db_go ||
> > exit 10'. Please change that in the patch I proposed.
>
> What is the difference?
>
> Either way, could you point me to the meaning of these error
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Frans Pop wrote:
> Instead of 'db_go || exit 30' it is probably better to use 'db_go || exit 10'.
> Please change that in the patch I proposed.
What is the difference?
Either way, could you point me to the meaning of these error codes? It seems I
can
Instead of 'db_go || exit 30' it is probably better to use 'db_go || exit 10'.
Please change that in the patch I proposed.
pgpwBljoCMqHy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Thursday 18 January 2007 21:08, Eddy Petrișor wrote:
> > No. The ppp dir is copied nowhere else and copying this way _only_
> > works because the files pap/chap-secrets and peers/provider already
> > exist in _/target_ because the ppp deb installs default files there
> > that already have the co
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Frans Pop wrote:
> On Thursday 18 January 2007 10:33, Eddy Petrișor wrote:
>>> db_input high ppp/username || true
>>> -db_go || true
>>> +db_go || exit 30
>> What is the difference induced by return code 30? Will it make the
>> installation fail if ra
On Jan 18, Eddy Petri??or <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In order for this to work, the interface name should be preserved. This
> happens, AFAIK, even for interfaces which are not configured, right?
Yes, the same rules for persistent names generated and used by d-i are
installed on the target.
--
On Thursday 18 January 2007 10:33, Eddy Petrișor wrote:
> > db_input high ppp/username || true
> > -db_go || true
> > +db_go || exit 30
>
> What is the difference induced by return code 30? Will it make the
> installation fail if ran non-interactively and this data is not
> provided?
>
> (I don't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Frans Pop wrote:
> On Monday 15 January 2007 15:34, you wrote:
>>> Yes, I know, I am aware of this issue and was aware of it from the
>>> start. The main problem is that the interfaces file does not allow
>>> comments at the end of lines with useful in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Eddy Petrișor wrote:
> Frans Pop wrote:
>> On Tuesday 09 January 2007 19:07, Eddy Petrişor wrote:
>>> Attached is a patch that closes a few open issues with the ppp-udeb.
>>> The most important are #402450 (not bringing up the interface after
>>> insta
Frans Pop wrote:
> On Tuesday 09 January 2007 19:07, Eddy Petrişor wrote:
>> Attached is a patch that closes a few open issues with the ppp-udeb.
>> The most important are #402450 (not bringing up the interface after
>> install and not saving a correspondent section in the target
>> /etc/network/in
On Tuesday 09 January 2007 19:07, Eddy Petrişor wrote:
> Attached is a patch that closes a few open issues with the ppp-udeb.
> The most important are #402450 (not bringing up the interface after
> install and not saving a correspondent section in the target
> /etc/network/interfaces) and the handl
Package: ppp
Tags: patch d-i
Severity: important
Hello,
Attached is a patch that closes a few open issues with the ppp-udeb.
The most important are #402450 (not bringing up the interface after
install and not saving a correspondent section in the target
/etc/network/interfaces) and the handling
12 matches
Mail list logo
