Hi!
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 9:21 PM, Robert Millan wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> As you may have noticed, upgrades of the GRUB Legacy package (`grub')
> in unstable have begun using GRUB 2 (`grub-pc' package) as upgrade
> path. This means that tentatively, GRUB 2 is to be considered the
> option for Lenny to
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
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
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, 10:43 +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 Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 06:43:35PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> For your proposal to work, you'd need some kind of replay mechanism, which
> allows udev to replay the add/remove events when /usr is available the
> extended
> ruleset is activated.
You mean "udevadm trigger"?
Gabor
--
---
Am Samstag 05 September 2009 08:18:13 schrieb Steve Langasek:
> On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 09:09:40PM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> > And it is also very unclear to me why this has to be in /lib/udev at
> > all.
>
> Because it provides a single point where the desktop hooks into the kernel
> hotplug eve
Gabor Gombas wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 06:43:35PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
>
>> For your proposal to work, you'd need some kind of replay mechanism, which
>> allows udev to replay the add/remove events when /usr is available the
>> extended
>> ruleset is activated.
>
> You mean "udevad
Hendrik Sattler wrote:
> Am Samstag 05 September 2009 08:18:13 schrieb Steve Langasek:
>> On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 09:09:40PM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
>>> And it is also very unclear to me why this has to be in /lib/udev at
>>> all.
>> Because it provides a single point where the desktop hooks into
Hendrik Sattler wrote:
> "This is the interface almost everything is going to turn to with GNOME
> 2.28 (via DeviceKit-power and DeviceKit-disks in most cases). By the
> time GNOME 2.30 and 3.0 are released, (theoretically) nothing will use
> HAL."
> and
> "all current DeviceKit-{power,disks} vers
Am Samstag 05 September 2009 11:20:06 schrieb Michael Biebl:
> Hendrik Sattler wrote:
> > Am Samstag 05 September 2009 08:18:13 schrieb Steve Langasek:
> >> On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 09:09:40PM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> >>> And it is also very unclear to me why this has to be in /lib/udev at
> >>> a
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Andrew O. Shadoura"
* Package name: libnatspec
Version : 0.2.4
Upstream Authors: Vitaly Lipatov ,
Pavel Vainerman
* URL : http://natspec.sourceforge.net/
* License : LGPL2.1
Programming Lang: C
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
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
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 Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 07:32:55PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 01:56:35 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I made some last changes to the DEP following round 4. You'll find them
> > below.
> > I plan to switch the DEP's status to CANDIDATE since it's a
Hi,
One of the features missing in upstart that is present in
sysvinit is that the latter loads SELinux security policy early in the
boot sequence, and the former does not (please correct me if this is not
the case). I would be happy to help integrate selinux into upstart,
if that is
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
Dear all
I recently posted bug #545127 (see [1]) as I noticed that the package
`publican' stores some shared files in /usr/share/Publican/ but stores
its documentation in /usr/share/doc/publican/.
As an end user, I expected /usr/share/publican/, given that the
package name is `publican'.
However
Twas brillig at 15:08:10 05.09.2009 UTC+02 when da...@debian.org did gyre and
gimble:
DS> The Debian Policy [2] has two places in which it says something
DS> about /usr/share/: sections 8.2 (Shared library support files) and
DS> 10.7.3 (Configuration Files > Behavior). However, according to
On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 10:02:21PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote [edited]:
> On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 09:54:19PM +0200, Serafeim Zanikolas wrote:
> Invocations of update-inetd that lead to local policy overrides are bugs in
> the caller, not in update-inetd. There is an explicitly reserved comment
>
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
Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> The future of the boot system in Debian
> ===
[..]
>
> The planned time frame for this is to replace /sbin/init with upstart
> for Squeeze, and see if we manage to change the very early boot to
[..]
> Petter Reinholdtsen, Kel Mod
Charles Plessy:
> At least one of the consequences of being native is that the package gets all
> its gettext and manpages translations for free from Debian. In the case of
> programs like ikiwiki [..]
AFAIK, any translator from Debian who has translated ikiwiki's gettext
or underlays (no man page
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
sean finney writes:
> On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 03:01:35PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
>> Jonas Meurer wrote:
>> >do we really consider to stop support for seperate /usr? after all fhs
>> >supports seperate /usr by design. [1]
>> >i hope that we keep fhs compability within debian.
>>
>> I a
Josselin Mouette writes:
> Le mardi 01 septembre 2009 à 10:32 +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen a écrit :
>> In Debian, /usr/ is allowed to be on NFS.
>
> So is /.
>
>> Mounting NFS volumes from
>> the initramfs is probably not worth the effort.
>
> How do you make root on NFS work without this?
By
Michael Biebl writes:
> Gabor Gombas wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 06:43:35PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
>>
>>> For your proposal to work, you'd need some kind of replay mechanism, which
>>> allows udev to replay the add/remove events when /usr is available the
>>> extended
>>> ruleset is
Petter Reinholdtsen writes:
> [Bastian Blank]
>> Why do you not extend the current setup to do another step?
>> Currently we have two
>> - in the initramfs with only minimal information and
>> - during the rcS run with / available.
>
> Eh, currently we have 5 sections during the boot:
>
> - init
Klaus Ethgen writes:
> Hi,
>
> maybe that is an issue for debian-user, so I put it in the To too
> although I am not subscribed there.
>
> If you look to Bug #497617 there is a long time bug in apt first only
> targeting the German translations but now it is independent of the
> locales.
>
> When
Am Samstag 05 September 2009 schrieb Goswin von Brederlow:
> Klaus Ethgen writes:
> > Hi,
> >
> > maybe that is an issue for debian-user, so I put it in the To too
> > although I am not subscribed there.
> >
> > If you look to Bug #497617 there is a long time bug in apt first only
> > targeting th
Joey Hess writes:
> Charles Plessy:
>> At least one of the consequences of being native is that the package gets all
>> its gettext and manpages translations for free from Debian. In the case of
>> programs like ikiwiki [..]
>
> AFAIK, any translator from Debian who has translated ikiwiki's gette
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi,
Am Sa den 5. Sep 2009 um 20:06 schrieb Goswin von Brederlow:
> % rmadison apt
>apt | 0.6.46.4-0.1 | etch-m68k | source, m68k
>apt | 0.6.46.4-0.1 | oldstable | source, alpha, amd64, arm, hppa,
> i386, ia64, mips, mipsel,
On 2009-09-05, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>>> Mounting NFS volumes from
>>> the initramfs is probably not worth the effort.
>> How do you make root on NFS work without this?
> By building a kernel with nfsroot support and mounting without
> locking and specific nfs version.
>
> I'm not sure if in
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 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,
On Sat, Sep 05, 2009 at 11:02:51AM +0200, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
> Am Samstag 05 September 2009 08:18:13 schrieb Steve Langasek:
> > On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 09:09:40PM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> > > And it is also very unclear to me why this has to be in /lib/udev at
> > > all.
> > Because it prov
On Sep 05, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> It is my understanding that the events get triggered in/before the
> initramfs and need to be replayed after switching to / already.
> How is replaying them when entering runlevel 2 any different from
> that?
The main issue is that the rules which run in t
On Sep 05, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > They are currently providing most of the manpower for developing udev
> > and the related infrastructure so this is pretty much the practical
> > effect, yes.
> So what, you think this means we don't have any right to object when they
> design things wrong?
No
Could someone please point me to a discussion on the pros and cons of upstart
that was not funded by that spacecowboy shuttleworth?
Michael Biebl wrote:
Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
The future of the boot system in Debian
===
[..]
The planned time frame fo
On Sun, Sep 06, 2009 at 12:56:03AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > > They are currently providing most of the manpower for developing udev
> > > and the related infrastructure so this is pretty much the practical
> > > effect, yes.
> > So what, you think this means we don't have any right to object
Hi Danai,
On Sat, Sep 05, 2009 at 03:08:10PM +0200, Danai SAE-HAN (韓達耐) wrote:
> I recently posted bug #545127 (see [1]) as I noticed that the package
> `publican' stores some shared files in /usr/share/Publican/ but stores
> its documentation in /usr/share/doc/publican/.
> As an end user, I expec
[mli...@stacktrace.us]
> Could someone please point me to a discussion on the pros and cons
> of upstart that was not funded by that spacecowboy shuttleworth?
No idea who funded the work, but some Fedora notes can be found via
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FCNewInit>. Fedora have already
switche
Great news. I really look forward to converting my init scripts to
native upstart jobs, but I believe that some clarifications are needed
about the long-term impact of switching to upstart.
Can you clarify what normal packages will have to do to support the
non-Linux ports which are unable to run
On Sep 06, Steve Langasek wrote:
> If you're unable to persuade upstream to change their implementation, and
> you're unwilling to diverge from upstream to ensure the package complies
> with Debian policy, your other option is to orphan the package and let
I am willing to diverge from upstream an
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
--- Please fill out the fields below. ---
Package name: quickly
Version: 0.2.2
Upstream Author: Rick Spencer and others
URL: https://launchpad.net/quickly
License: GNU GPL 3
Description
Quoting mli...@stacktrace.us (mli...@stacktrace.us):
> Could someone please point me to a discussion on the pros and cons of upstart
> that was not funded by that spacecowboy shuttleworth?
I see absolutely zero point in throwing out partly aggressive remarks
in this thread.
Scott, who initiate
47 matches
Mail list logo
