Re: ia64 install report
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 07:58:57PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> 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..
Yes, that is the full set,
Thanks!
Richard
> > 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
Reply to: