On Friday 09 July 2010, Ian Campbell wrote:
> In light of Frans' concern perhaps consider dropping 686 instead of 486?
> I think that will result in 686-bigmem being installed on systems which
> would have previously got 686 (I can confirm if necessary). This isn't
> necessarily a bad thing -- it e
On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 14:28 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> What I've done for now is drop the -486 kernel flavour from the m-a
> netinst. From a test build I've just done, everything fits on a single
> CD again, even with firmware included. If people want to install from
> a netinst onto a pre-686
On Friday 09 July 2010, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> True. Any better suggestions?
No. Not without doing substantial work on this, which I've already
indicated I'm not going to do this release.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-cd-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble?
On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 04:11:06PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
>On Friday 09 July 2010, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> What I've done for now is drop the -486 kernel flavour from the m-a
>> netinst. From a test build I've just done, everything fits on a single
>> CD again, even with firmware included. If peo
On Friday 09 July 2010, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> What I've done for now is drop the -486 kernel flavour from the m-a
> netinst. From a test build I've just done, everything fits on a single
> CD again, even with firmware included. If people want to install from
> a netinst onto a pre-686 machine the
What I've done for now is drop the -486 kernel flavour from the m-a
netinst. From a test build I've just done, everything fits on a single
CD again, even with firmware included. If people want to install from
a netinst onto a pre-686 machine then they'll need to use the separate
i386 netinst instea
On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 12:50 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 03:35:23PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> >On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 15:23 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 10:00:38AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> >> >I don't think libuuid-perl really needs perl
On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 08:25:19AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
>Specifying VARIANTS in CONF.sh seems to stop command lines such as "
>VARIANTS=blah ./build.sh" from working because it overrides the command
>line supplied value. Commenting out the variable is consistent with how
>other such varia
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 03:35:23PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
>On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 15:23 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 10:00:38AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
>> >I don't think libuuid-perl really needs perl and I have filed #588427 to
>> >that effect.
>>
>> Cool.
>
>It's
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 09:45:12PM -0700, Chris Reich wrote:
>
>This powerpc user would rather not see powerpc dropped from the
>netinstall disk but accepts that it may be the time to do it in the
>interests of the much larger number of x86 based hardware in the
>wild.
Yup. There will still be a s
Hi,
Last chance! Just a reminder, Mike would like to
share approved contacts with you on Boxbe.
Use this link:
https://www.boxbe.com/register?tc=3618425543_711415629
This message was sent at the request of genkstar...@yahoo.com.
If you want to opt-out of invitations from Boxbe members, use
Specifying VARIANTS in CONF.sh seems to stop command lines such as "
VARIANTS=blah ./build.sh" from working because it overrides the command
line supplied value. Commenting out the variable is consistent with how
other such variables are treated.
I suspect the only reason VARIANTS=xen has been
12 matches
Mail list logo
