On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 11:47:50PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Monday 19 January 2009, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > I don't own such hardware, and don't know enough about it. But I
> > know d-i already has partman-efi on i386/amd64. As far as I know
> > everything EFI related works and is supported on
On Monday 19 January 2009, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> I don't own such hardware, and don't know enough about it. But I
> know d-i already has partman-efi on i386/amd64. As far as I know
> everything EFI related works and is supported on i386 and amd64,
> except for efi-reader.
The case for partman-efi
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 11:14:42PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 10:33:48PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> > > (OTOH, I'm pretty sure
> > > that if a third party was to go to them with "Hey, I could use
> > > efi-reader udeb on amd64", and provided a patch, they'd hopefully
> > > i
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 10:33:48PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> > (OTOH, I'm pretty sure
> > that if a third party was to go to them with "Hey, I could use
> > efi-reader udeb on amd64", and provided a patch, they'd hopefully
> > include it even if they'd continue not to use efi-reader on amd64.)
>
>
On Monday 19 January 2009, you wrote:
> * Frans Pop [Sat, 06 Dec 2008 23:42:19 +0100]:
> > http://buildd.debian.org/pkg.cgi?maint=debian-boot%40lists.debian.org
>
> If that page is part of d-i workflow (can you confirm?),
Yes, that is correct and that has always been my main motivation to
request
* Frans Pop [Sat, 06 Dec 2008 23:42:19 +0100]:
> http://buildd.debian.org/pkg.cgi?maint=debian-boot%40lists.debian.org
If that page is part of d-i workflow (can you confirm?), then I'm
tempted to drop efi-reader from P-a-s/amd64 even if it's not strictly
correct to do that. My rationale is, first
* Frans Pop [Sat, 06 Dec 2008 21:22:58 +0100]:
Hello,
> * remove not-for-us for partitioner for s390
> P-a-s has correct info on partitioner; the redundant not-fur-us and failed
> status in wannabuild only confuse build overview pages.
I've done this part, thanks for catching.
> * clear "fail
On Sunday 07 December 2008, you wrote:
> I would like it to stay until someone can say that it doesn't make
> sense to have that package on that arch.
We've had this broken current situation for over two years!
If someone was going to work on this, they should have done so by now.
I have wasted
On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 at 11:42:19PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Saturday 06 December 2008, you wrote:
> > If it would work, then there is no reason at all to change P-a-s. It is
> > not meant for short term solutions, that's what not-for-us is for.
>
> P-a-s WAS changed to allow amd64 even though
On Saturday 06 December 2008, you wrote:
> If it would work, then there is no reason at all to change P-a-s. It is
> not meant for short term solutions, that's what not-for-us is for.
P-a-s WAS changed to allow amd64 even though the package has NEVER been
supported for amd64. And that change was
Frans Pop wrote:
> On Saturday 06 December 2008, you wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 at 09:22:58PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
>>> * efi-reader should be ia64 only in p-a-s, not amd64
>>> It is also ia64 only in debian/control.
>> Afaik, i386 and amd64 supports EFI. Is there a reason why this
>> woul
On Saturday 06 December 2008, you wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 at 09:22:58PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> > * efi-reader should be ia64 only in p-a-s, not amd64
> > It is also ia64 only in debian/control.
>
> Afaik, i386 and amd64 supports EFI. Is there a reason why this
> wouldn't work on such sy
On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 at 09:22:58PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
>
> * efi-reader should be ia64 only in p-a-s, not amd64
> It is also ia64 only in debian/control.
Afaik, i386 and amd64 supports EFI. Is there a reason why this
wouldn't work on such systems?
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [E
Package: buildd.debian.org
Below a few (minor) issues with p-a-s and the wannabuild database that
I've tried to get fixed before, but failed.
* efi-reader should be ia64 only in p-a-s, not amd64
It is also ia64 only in debian/control.
After that is updated, please clear the "failed" status fo
14 matches
Mail list logo
