On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 01:55:11AM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> On a personal note, I'm unsure how we came up with a situation where a
> single maintainer can *actively* stall a release… Not caring about the
> release process put into place years ago is a thing. Stopping people
> from fixing pro
On 02/07/2013 02:14 PM, Joey Hess wrote:
Howver, that is not the only image provided by Debian that uses
syslinux. The d-i mini.iso is another one, which uses the syslinux
provided by d-i's Build-Depedency, ie the one from unstable.
that has already been discussed in earlier messages.
--
Addre
Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 07:52:13AM +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> >
> >consider such a misfeature to be in critical need of a fix (iirc
> >steve puts a local copy of the 'to be used' syslinux version to be
> >used by debian-cd for release images manually on the local fs; not
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 11:08:55AM +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> i'm argueing for either an explicit unfrozen sid or an explicit
> frozen sid. since it's neither right now, and you intend to
> overwrite the maintainers decision via CTTE to upload newer syslinux
> to sid, you need to argue against
On 02/07/2013 11:17 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
I must have missed that, and I can't find it on either bug #699382,
699742 or 699808.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=699808#10
--
Address:Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH-3012 Bern
Email: daniel.baum...@progr
Daniel Baumann, le Thu 07 Feb 2013 11:08:55 +0100, a écrit :
> i've already made the case why i want newer syslinux in sid,
I must have missed that, and I can't find it on either bug #699382,
699742 or 699808.
Samuel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a
On 02/07/2013 10:53 AM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
If that can't be used with virtualbox (and we already established
that, thanks to Michael's testing), that means it's broken with your
patch too.
as already elaborated, the bug in vbox needs to be fixed anyway,
regardless what version of syslinux
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 10:15:42AM +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote:
>On 02/07/2013 09:59 AM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>>That doesn't
>>mean we should be keeping syslinux 5 in sid in the meanwhile, especially
>>since that's preventing us from releasing d-i wheezy rc1.
>
>(ftr) which is where i disagree, w
Daniel Baumann (07/02/2013):
> On 02/07/2013 10:27 AM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> >That means at least broken mini.iso, which is totally unacceptable.
>
> broken without the patch i send for debian-installer, yes.
If that can't be used with virtualbox (and we already established
that, thanks to Mi
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 07:52:13AM +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote:
>
>consider such a misfeature to be in critical need of a fix (iirc
>steve puts a local copy of the 'to be used' syslinux version to be
>used by debian-cd for release images manually on the local fs; not
>sure about the same that ends
On 02/07/2013 10:27 AM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
That means at least broken mini.iso, which is totally unacceptable.
broken without the patch i send for debian-installer, yes.
therefore, right now, even without any patches, the only actually
affected things are the images within the debian-inst
Daniel Baumann (07/02/2013):
> (ftr) which is where i disagree, with the mentioned patch against
> d-i and debian-cd, you can release d-i wheezy rc1, even with
> syslinux 5.x in sid.
>
> even more so: since steve uses a local copy of syslinux anyway
> (judging from debian-cd sources as unfortunat
On Thu, 07 Feb 2013, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> on the mirror and not in the package repository (the installer directories
> are shared between wheezy and sid).
Cyril pointed out to me that this specific point is wrong, while
wheezy/main/installer-* and unstable/main/installer-* have the same
conten
On 07.02.2013 08:31, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Technically d-i point release updates are built in
"stable-proposed-updates" and build dependencies are satisfied in
stable
(+ s-p-u maybe). Similarly it should be possible to build d-i for
wheezy
in testing-proposed-updates right now (and have build-
On 02/07/2013 09:59 AM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
That doesn't
mean we should be keeping syslinux 5 in sid in the meanwhile, especially
since that's preventing us from releasing d-i wheezy rc1.
(ftr) which is where i disagree, with the mentioned patch against d-i
and debian-cd, you can release d-
Daniel Baumann (07/02/2013):
> i'm not commenting on unfair accusations, so only to the relevant part:
>
> On 02/07/2013 09:00 AM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> >>again, note that any other virtualization software, be it in wheezy
> >>directly (qemu, kvm) or otherwise (parallels, vmware) which i've
>
i'm not commenting on unfair accusations, so only to the relevant part:
On 02/07/2013 09:00 AM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
again, note that any other virtualization software, be it in wheezy
directly (qemu, kvm) or otherwise (parallels, vmware) which i've
tested with, has no bugs with syslinux 5. it
Hi,
On Wed, 06 Feb 2013, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> two at a time. Holding d-i's build dependencies static in unstable for
> more than half a year is just nuts to me! Sure seems like d-i is
> something we should build using the components of the release it will be
> contained in and not unstable... b
Daniel Baumann (07/02/2013):
> On 02/07/2013 08:12 AM, Michael Biebl wrote:
> >This list is getting longer with each email. Seeing that syslinux 5 has
> >been in sid for less then 10 days, I'm worried what other issues might
> >show up.
>
> apart from the two obvious things (debian-installer and
On 02/07/2013 08:12 AM, Michael Biebl wrote:
This list is getting longer with each email. Seeing that syslinux 5 has
been in sid for less then 10 days, I'm worried what other issues might
show up.
apart from the two obvious things (debian-installer and debian-cd) that
do need to be updated to
On 07.02.2013 08:06, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> On 02/07/2013 07:55 AM, Michael Biebl wrote:
>> I think it is obvious by now that reverting to syslinux 4 from wheezy is
>> the only sensible way forward at this point in the release.
>
> 'obvious'?
Imho, yes. But then, it's not up to me to decide.
>
sorry, forgot to put in the links to the patches..
On 02/07/2013 08:06 AM, Daniel Baumann wrote:
* patch applied against debian-installer to include the additionally
required .c32 modules when using vesamenu.c32
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=699742#30
* patch ap
On 02/07/2013 07:55 AM, Michael Biebl wrote:
I think it is obvious by now that reverting to syslinux 4 from wheezy is
the only sensible way forward at this point in the release.
'obvious'?
it requires two straight forward things, that, again, as said, are
required to be applied for jessie any
On 07.02.2013 07:58, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> On 02/07/2013 07:45 AM, Michael Biebl wrote:
>> Well, VBOX is pretty popular, so shipping an installer which doesn't
>> work for such an environment is certainly a no-go.
>
> again, the syslinux in sid would not be in wheezy. making it a
> *temporary*
On 02/07/2013 07:45 AM, Michael Biebl wrote:
Well, VBOX is pretty popular, so shipping an installer which doesn't
work for such an environment is certainly a no-go.
again, the syslinux in sid would not be in wheezy. making it a
*temporary* problem until vbox has been fixed in debian (which i'm
On 02/07/2013 07:35 AM, Michael Tokarev wrote:
This makes me wonder what other components are also buggy somehow and
needs to be updated?
first, this is a specific bug in vbox that was fixed some time ago but
didn't make it into debian yet (because it lags a significant amount of
upstream rel
On 07.02.2013 07:30, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> On 02/06/2013 11:48 PM, Michael Biebl wrote:
>> Unfortunately the second patch doesn't work either. See [1].
>
> that is incorrect; the patch works, it's just the old vbox version in
> current debian testing/sid which has a bug (try the image on real
07.02.2013 10:30, Daniel Baumann wrote:
On 02/06/2013 11:48 PM, Michael Biebl wrote:
Unfortunately the second patch doesn't work either. See [1].
that is incorrect; the patch works, it's just the old vbox version in current
debian testing/sid which has a bug (try the image on real hardware or
On 02/06/2013 11:48 PM, Michael Biebl wrote:
Unfortunately the second patch doesn't work either. See [1].
that is incorrect; the patch works, it's just the old vbox version in
current debian testing/sid which has a bug (try the image on real
hardware or any other virtualization and it works).
Cyril Brulebois writes:
> Bdale Garbee (06/02/2013):
>> I personally consider this a regrettable situation, and hope that for
>> jessie and beyond we can work out how to do this better. It is
>> unacceptable to me to "freeze" anything in sid for more than a week or
>> two at a time. Holding d-
Bdale Garbee (06/02/2013):
> I personally consider this a regrettable situation, and hope that for
> jessie and beyond we can work out how to do this better. It is
> unacceptable to me to "freeze" anything in sid for more than a week or
> two at a time. Holding d-i's build dependencies static in
On 06.02.2013 23:22, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Feb 2013, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Don Armstrong writes:
>>
>>> Assuming that the patch for #699742[0] fixes this issue with DI RC
>>> releases being installed, is there still an outstanding issue for the
>>> CTTE?
>>
>> Earlier in this thread,
Bdale Garbee writes:
> I personally consider this a regrettable situation, and hope that for
> jessie and beyond we can work out how to do this better. It is
> unacceptable to me to "freeze" anything in sid for more than a week or
> two at a time. Holding d-i's build dependencies static in unst
Russ Allbery writes:
> In practice, at least for the last couple of release cycles, we freeze
> unstable for non-leaf packages during the release freeze because otherwise
> it's too difficult with our current infrastructure to finish the
> release.
I personally consider this a regrettable situat
On Wed, 06 Feb 2013, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Don Armstrong writes:
>
> > Assuming that the patch for #699742[0] fixes this issue with DI RC
> > releases being installed, is there still an outstanding issue for the
> > CTTE?
>
> Earlier in this thread, there had been a couple of reports that fix di
Don Armstrong writes:
> Assuming that the patch for #699742[0] fixes this issue with DI RC
> releases being installed, is there still an outstanding issue for the
> CTTE?
Earlier in this thread, there had been a couple of reports that fix didn't
work. I haven't looked further, though.
> [I can
On Tue, 05 Feb 2013, Julien Cristau wrote:
> - the latest of these uploads breaks the installer, making it
> impossible to build and upload the planned wheezy release
> candidate, since build-dependencies are fetched from unstable
> - when asked to revert this change, the syslinux maintainer r
On 02/06/2013 10:38 AM, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> On 02/06/2013 12:55 AM, Don Armstrong wrote:
>> Is it the intention of the Release Managers not to accept a newer
>> version of syslinux into wheezy? [That is, if the CTTE were to decide
>> to require some "fix" to d-i, we'd also have to override the
On 02/06/2013 12:55 AM, Don Armstrong wrote:
Is it the intention of the Release Managers not to accept a newer
version of syslinux into wheezy? [That is, if the CTTE were to decide
to require some "fix" to d-i, we'd also have to override the RMs?]
jftr, i never did nor intended to ask for havin
On 05.02.2013 23:55, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 06 Feb 2013, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Daniel Baumann
(05/02/2013):
> or:
>
> * apply the following tested and working patch from #699742 in
> debian-installer, […]
Except that this “tested and working patch” doesn't fix anything.
Same
is
On Wed, 06 Feb 2013, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Daniel Baumann (05/02/2013):
> > or:
> >
> > * apply the following tested and working patch from #699742 in
> > debian-installer, […]
>
> Except that this “tested and working patch” doesn't fix anything. Same
> issue, as seen by Michael and mys
Daniel Baumann (05/02/2013):
> or:
>
> * apply the following tested and working patch from #699742 in
> debian-installer, […]
Except that this “tested and working patch” doesn't fix anything. Same
issue, as seen by Michael and myself.
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
42 matches
Mail list logo
