On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 05:35:06PM +0200, Gabor Gombas wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 04:35:42PM +0200, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
>
> > With the namespace issue fixed and a blacklist to avoid mounting
> > partitions in a virtualization environment, would it make sense to
> > make grub-pc recommend
On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 04:35:42PM +0200, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> With the namespace issue fixed and a blacklist to avoid mounting
> partitions in a virtualization environment, would it make sense to
> make grub-pc recommend (or even depend on) os-prober again?
The problem is not just virtualiz
There's already a report open on os-prober to make it really read-only
#417407
IIRC Colin Watson already thought in an Ubuntu bug report about
implementing a blacklist for os-prober.
With the namespace issue fixed and a blacklist to avoid mounting
partitions in a virtualization environment, wou
Am Dienstag, den 08.09.2009, 16:35 +0200 schrieb Fabian Greffrath:
> > There's already a report open on os-prober to make it really read-only
> > #417407
> > IIRC Colin Watson already thought in an Ubuntu bug report about
> > implementing a blacklist for os-prober.
>
> With the namespace issue fix
Am Montag, den 07.09.2009, 13:30 +0200 schrieb Vincent Danjean:
> Gabor Gombas wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 05, 2009 at 03:03:40PM +0200, Felix Zielcke wrote:
> >
> >> Robert filed already after the upload of grub-legacy a RC bug so it
> >> doestn't migrate after the usual 10 days to testing.
> >>
> >>
On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 09:53:30AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 05, 2009 at 08:32:02PM +0200, Gabor Gombas wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 05, 2009 at 03:03:40PM +0200, Felix Zielcke wrote:
> > > Note that we only Suggests: os-prober and not Recommend: it like Ubuntu
> > > does because of 491872
Gabor Gombas wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 05, 2009 at 03:03:40PM +0200, Felix Zielcke wrote:
>
>> Robert filed already after the upload of grub-legacy a RC bug so it
>> doestn't migrate after the usual 10 days to testing.
>>
>> Note that we only Suggests: os-prober and not Recommend: it like Ubuntu
>> doe
Colin Watson wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 05, 2009 at 10:55:42PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
>> I would not recommend having os-prober installed for this.
>
> We should make it more efficient and less intrusive, but that's
> perfectly feasible in os-prober itself and would be a good idea anyway.
My main poin
On Sat, Sep 05, 2009 at 08:32:02PM +0200, Gabor Gombas wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 05, 2009 at 03:03:40PM +0200, Felix Zielcke wrote:
> > Note that we only Suggests: os-prober and not Recommend: it like Ubuntu
> > does because of 491872
> > So if anyone want to help that we Recommend it again, then help t
On Sat, Sep 05, 2009 at 11:03:10PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Saturday 05 September 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
> > It has never been intended to be used as part of an update-grub script
> > and to be run every time the bootloader configuration is updated
> > because a new/updated kernel was installed
On Sat, Sep 05, 2009 at 10:55:42PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> Philipp Kern wrote:
> > Do you have os-prober installed?
>
> I would not recommend having os-prober installed for this. os-prober has
> always been intended to be run only _once_, mostly when a new system is
> installed. It exists as a
On Saturday 05 September 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
> It has never been intended to be used as part of an update-grub script
> and to be run every time the bootloader configuration is updated
> because a new/updated kernel was installed or one of the packages that
> affect an initrd (udev, mdcfg, lvm,
Philipp Kern wrote:
> Do you have os-prober installed?
I would not recommend having os-prober installed for this. os-prober has
always been intended to be run only _once_, mostly when a new system is
installed. It exists as a .deb to be used for example after a debootstrap
installation of a sys
On Sat, Sep 05, 2009 at 03:03:40PM +0200, Felix Zielcke wrote:
> Robert filed already after the upload of grub-legacy a RC bug so it
> doestn't migrate after the usual 10 days to testing.
>
> Note that we only Suggests: os-prober and not Recommend: it like Ubuntu
> does because of 491872
> So if
Am Samstag, den 05.09.2009, 15:04 +0200 schrieb Hans-J. Ullrich:
> Additionally to that, my very own grub configuration with special
> settings
> (including a self created starting image) was not overtaken.
>
> So it would be nice, if the maintainers might include an option or
> script,
> which
Am Samstag 05 September 2009 schrieb Norbert Preining:
> Already reported as a bug, but I think that should be discussed here, too.
>
> Upgrading to grub-pc does not carry over static stanza for Windows, nor
> does the os-detecting code find my Windows on sda2.
>
> Since that is one of the most c
Am Samstag, den 05.09.2009, 14:37 +0200 schrieb Norbert Preining:
> Already reported as a bug, but I think that should be discussed here, too.
>
> Upgrading to grub-pc does not carry over static stanza for Windows, nor
> does the os-detecting code find my Windows on sda2.
>
> Since that is one of
On 2009-09-05, Norbert Preining wrote:
> Already reported as a bug, but I think that should be discussed here, too.
>
> Upgrading to grub-pc does not carry over static stanza for Windows, nor
> does the os-detecting code find my Windows on sda2.
Do you have os-prober installed?
Kind regards,
Phi
Already reported as a bug, but I think that should be discussed here, too.
Upgrading to grub-pc does not carry over static stanza for Windows, nor
does the os-detecting code find my Windows on sda2.
Since that is one of the most common szenaria (dual booting) I consider
the sole idea of generally
Am Samstag, den 05.09.2009, 10:43 +0200 schrieb Norbert Preining:
> On Sa, 05 Sep 2009, Felix Zielcke wrote:
> > > How should the upgrade in sid work? At least aptitude does not find
> > > a working upgrade path from -57 to -58 ...
> >
> > The problem was that grub-pc had an unversioned Conflicts:
On Sa, 05 Sep 2009, Felix Zielcke wrote:
> > How should the upgrade in sid work? At least aptitude does not find
> > a working upgrade path from -57 to -58 ...
>
> The problem was that grub-pc had an unversioned Conflicts: grub
> That has been fixed in the tonight uploaded 1.97~beta2-2.
Thanks.
Am Samstag, den 05.09.2009, 10:33 +0200 schrieb Norbert Preining:
> Cannot reply so sorry for breaking the thread.
>
> How should the upgrade in sid work? At least aptitude does not find
> a working upgrade path from -57 to -58 ...
The problem was that grub-pc had an unversioned Conflicts: grub
T
Cannot reply so sorry for breaking the thread.
How should the upgrade in sid work? At least aptitude does not find
a working upgrade path from -57 to -58 ...
Best wishes
Norbert
---
Dr. Norbert Preining Vienna U
23 matches
Mail list logo
