On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 11:29:55AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Daniel Richard G.]
> > Yes, I see that... what is it now, the --no-recommends switch is broken?
>
> Nope. Your installation simply used version 0.26, which is one
> version before the change was introduced.
>
> I eagerly awa
On Sun, 2010 Jul 18 06:09+0200, Frans Pop wrote:
>
> No. Those are *not* daily built images. Follow the relevant links from
> the page I referred to! For netboot you need "other images".
Oh, right---I see the different set of links, that go to various places
(e.g. people.debian.org) not in the rep
On Sunday 18 July 2010, Daniel Richard G. wrote:
> So if I had used the one from
> http://http.us.debian.org/debian/dists/sid/main/installer-amd64/current/
>images/netboot/
>
> it would have worked?
No. Those are *not* daily built images. Follow the relevant links from the
page I referred to! For
On Sun, 2010 Jul 18 04:46+0200, Frans Pop wrote:
>
> No, that's no update. Only a date change for some reason. The images
> are still identical to the alpha1 release from February. One way to
> see that is to check the kernel version: it uses 2.6.30 instead of
> 2.6.32. Another is to check the /etc
On Sunday 18 July 2010, Daniel Richard G. wrote:
> On Sat, 2010 Jul 17 21:40+0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > I'm not sure what image was used by the bug reporter, but I assume a
> > current "D-I alpha 1" image. The alpha1 images date from mid Februari.
>
> These received a refresh a few days ago:
> http
On Sat, 2010 Jul 17 21:40+0200, Frans Pop wrote:
>
> I'm not sure what image was used by the bug reporter, but I assume a
> current "D-I alpha 1" image. The alpha1 images date from mid Februari.
These received a refresh a few days ago:
http://http.us.debian.org/debian/dists/squeeze/main/inst
(Daniel: sorry for the private duplicate of this mail; no need to CC me.)
On Saturday 17 July 2010, Daniel Richard G. wrote:
> On Sat, 2010 Jul 17 13:35+0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > So: as the reported issue is already fixed in current daily built D-I
> > images and as the Recommends in popcon is fu
On Sat, 2010 Jul 17 13:35+0200, Frans Pop wrote:
>
> So: as the reported issue is already fixed in current daily built D-I
> images and as the Recommends in popcon is functionally correct, there
> is absolutely zero need to make any changes in popcon.
Okay, now I'm a little confused.
So I see in
On Saturday 17 July 2010, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> I eagerly await Bills view on the proposed change for
> popularity-contest, which I believe i a better place to implement the
> change.
No, it is not reasonable to ask packages to change functionally correct and
policy-compliant dependencies
[Daniel Richard G.]
> Yes, I see that... what is it now, the --no-recommends switch is broken?
Nope. Your installation simply used version 0.26, which is one
version before the change was introduced.
I eagerly await Bills view on the proposed change for
popularity-contest, which I believe i a be
On Sat, 2010 Jul 17 09:56+0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>
> The obvious fix is to change popularity-contest to suggest instead of
> recommend, to avoid pulling in a MTA when popularity-contest is
> installed. Cc to the maintainer list to see if that is an interesting
> alternative.
Hunh. I was
[Daniel Richard G.]
> Of course; it is attached.
>
> Looking at that, it doesn't appear that cron is responsible for pulling
> in exim4*; cron is installed much earlier in the process. heirloom-mailx
> is installed at the same time as exim4*, but that one only Suggests:
> exim4. It seems possible
On Thu, 2010 Jul 15 22:41+0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>
> Why do you find exim4 inappropriate for a minimal install?
* Users may not want a full MTA installed in the first place. (Same
argument as to why Apache/ProFTPD/NTPD/Bind/etc. are not appropriate
for a minimal install.)
* As a ful
[Frans Pop]
> And on what do you base that statement?
I base it on many years of experience with debian installer and mine
observations of its inner workings. And as far as I know there is
nothing in debian-installer asking for exim to be installed. The
packages installed is mostly decided by d
On Thursday 15 July 2010, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> I suspect the change you propose can not be implemented by
> debian-installer, but instead would have to be done by changing cron
> or any other package pulling in the mta package. At least the way d-i
> is designed at the moment.
And on what
On Thursday 15 July 2010, Daniel Richard G. wrote:
> From the looks of it, exim4 is installed because of a Recommends: by
> the cron package:
>
> Recommends: exim4 | postfix | mail-transport-agent, lockfile-progs
How exactly did you determine this? I doubt it is cron as Recommends are
not ins
[Daniel Richard G.]
> I want to install a minimal Debian/squeeze system. When the
> installer presents the tasksel screen, I unselect everything, even
> "Standard system utilities". Yet when the install is finished, I see
> that a complete exim4 installation is present, and running. This is,
> to
Package: debian-installer
Version: 20100211+b1
(Note: I'm not sure that d-i is the correct package for this bug; please
reassign if needed.)
I want to install a minimal Debian/squeeze system. When the installer
presents the tasksel screen, I unselect everything, even "Standard
system utilities".
18 matches
Mail list logo
