Richard Hirst wrote:
> a) The iso has kernel-installer_0.045_all.udeb, even though 0.046 is in
> the archive. Presumably we are stuck with that until Joeyh forces 0.046
> in to testing. As a result, it installed a 2.4.19 kernel for Itanium,
> rather than choosing Itanium or Mckinley 2.4.20 based on /proc/cpuinfo.
This is why I want manty to make some cds that use udebs from unstable,
so we can test this stuff before moving it into testing. I understnad
he's working on it.
But a least during proparation for this beta it would probably be ok to
just force it in, since the stuff in testing is not known to work at
all. My list of packages that need to go into testing for ia64 is:
Needs base-installer (0.046) in testing.
Needs the kernel module udebs from kernel-patch-2.4.20-ia64
(021210.em20.7) in testing.
If that is the full set, I will try to get them in before tomorrow's
dinstall..
> b) At some point during loading the installer modules, it spews a load
> of text over the screen, such as:
>
> Unknown localized field:
> Description-fr.ISO-8859-15: Aucune partition de dmarrage dtecte
>
> That doesn't seem to cause a problem though.
I tried to find this tring in the beta2 tree, but I could not. Anyway,
it appears to be a French translation that is wrongly encoded; d-i should
only use utf-8. If you can grep out the relevant udeb in /var/lib/dpkg/info/,
in the chroot, it should be easy to fix.
> I checked that the sym53c8xx_2 module jbailey wanted was available, so I
> think we can say ia64 is ready for beta2. Would be very nice if someone
> else could test though.
That's great news. I am inclined to call beta2 as soon as we have two
architectures ready. The other two or so architectures could then catch
up and get their own release announcement.
--
see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature