[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#281805: marked as done (Please provide an expert choice for using dselect instead of aptitude)

Your message dated Thu, 9 Jun 2005 17:38:47 -0400
with message-id <20050609213847.GA28234@kitenet.net>
and subject line rejected
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 17 Nov 2004 22:06:36 +0000
>From simon.roscic@mpreis.at Wed Nov 17 14:06:36 2004
Return-path: <simon.roscic@mpreis.at>
Received: from ns.tikom.at (tikom.at) [] 
	by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
	id 1CUXwh-00084k-00; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 14:06:36 -0800
Received: by data.tikom.at id <119175>; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 23:05:56 +0100
From: simon.roscic@mpreis.at
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Subject: install report
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.13   March 9, 2004
Message-Id: <04Nov17.230556cet.119175@data.tikom.at>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 23:07:43 +0100
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on Adam/Mpreis(Release 5.0.11 |September 30, 2002) at
 17.11.2004 23:05:53,
	Serialize complete at 17.11.2004 23:05:53
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25 
	(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.4 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE,
	NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25

Package: installation-reports


Debian-installer-version: 11/13/2004,
uname -a: Linux mail 2.4.27-1-386 #1 Fri Sep 3 06:24:46 UTC 2004 i686 
Date: Sat Nov 13 21:21
Method: Installed using the sarge-i386-netinst.iso (ide cdrom),
        packages downloaded over our suqid-proxy from debian.inode.at.

Machine: IBM xSeries 342
Processor: 1x Intel Pentium III @ 1,2 GHz
Memory: 1 GB
Root Device: SCSI (Hardware Raid: IBM ServeRaid 4LX)
(2 logical disks: 2x 18 GB raid 1 / 1x 72 GB raid 0)
Root Size/partition table: 
(the install currently is very basic, sdb4 is currently not used 
df -h:
Filesystem            Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/sda3             8.0G  286M  7.7G   4% /
tmpfs                 443M     0  443M   0% /dev/shm
/dev/sda1              60M  5.7M   54M  10% /boot
/dev/sdb1              18G  528K   18G   1% /tmp
/dev/sda4             8.0G   67M  7.9G   1% /var
/dev/sdb3              18G  272K   18G   1% /var/lib/amavis/virusmails
/dev/sdb2              18G  272K   18G   1% /var/spool/squid
/dev/sda3 on / type xfs (rw)
proc on /proc type proc (rw)
devpts on /dev/pts type devpts (rw,gid=5,mode=620)
tmpfs on /dev/shm type tmpfs (rw)
/dev/sda1 on /boot type xfs (rw)
/dev/sdb1 on /tmp type xfs (rw)
/dev/sda4 on /var type xfs (rw)
/dev/sdb3 on /var/lib/amavis/virusmails type xfs (rw)
/dev/sdb2 on /var/spool/squid type xfs (rw)
usbfs on /proc/bus/usb type usbfs (rw)
fdisk /dev/sda:
Disk /dev/sda: 18.2 GB, 18200133632 bytes
254 heads, 63 sectors/track, 2221 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16002 * 512 = 8193024 bytes
   Device Boot      Start         End      Blocks   Id  System
/dev/sda1   *           1           9       71977+  83  Linux
/dev/sda2              10         134     1000125   82  Linux swap
/dev/sda3             135        1178     8353044   83  Linux
/dev/sda4            1179        2221     8345043   83  Linux
fdisk /dev/sdb:
Disk /dev/sdb: 73.4 GB, 73406611456 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 8924 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
   Device Boot      Start         End      Blocks   Id  System
/dev/sdb1               1        2231    17920476   83  Linux
/dev/sdb2            2232        4462    17920507+  83  Linux
/dev/sdb3            4463        6693    17920507+  83  Linux
/dev/sdb4            6694        8924    17920507+  83  Linux

Output of lspci and lspci -n:
0000:00:00.0 Host bridge: ServerWorks CNB20HE Host Bridge (rev 23)
0000:00:00.1 Host bridge: ServerWorks CNB20HE Host Bridge (rev 01)
0000:00:00.2 Host bridge: ServerWorks CNB20HE Host Bridge (rev 01)
0000:00:00.3 Host bridge: ServerWorks CNB20HE Host Bridge (rev 01)
0000:00:06.0 VGA compatible controller: S3 Inc. Savage 4 (rev 06)
0000:00:0f.0 ISA bridge: ServerWorks OSB4 South Bridge (rev 51)
0000:00:0f.1 IDE interface: ServerWorks OSB4 IDE Controller
0000:00:0f.2 USB Controller: ServerWorks OSB4/CSB5 OHCI USB Controller 
(rev 04)
0000:01:02.0 RAID bus controller: IBM ServeRAID Controller
0000:01:07.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corp. 82557/8/9 [Ethernet Pro 100] 
(rev 0d)
lspci -n:
0000:00:00.0 0600: 1166:0008 (rev 23)
0000:00:00.1 0600: 1166:0008 (rev 01)
0000:00:00.2 0600: 1166:0006 (rev 01)
0000:00:00.3 0600: 1166:0006 (rev 01)
0000:00:06.0 0300: 5333:8a22 (rev 06)
0000:00:0f.0 0601: 1166:0200 (rev 51)
0000:00:0f.1 0101: 1166:0211
0000:00:0f.2 0c03: 1166:0220 (rev 04)
0000:01:02.0 0104: 1014:01bd
0000:01:07.0 0200: 8086:1229 (rev 0d)

Base System Installation Checklist:
[O] = OK, [E] = Error (please elaborate below), [ ] = didn't try it

Initial boot worked:    [O]
Configure network HW:   [O]
Config network:         [O]
Detect CD:              [O]
Load installer modules: [O]
Detect hard drives:     [O]
Partition hard drives:  [O]
Create file systems:    [O]
Mount partitions:       [O]
Install base system:    [O]
Install boot loader:    [O]    (LILO)
Reboot:                 [O]


everything went smooth and i'm very satisfied with debian-installer,
but i missed dselect, i mean, in previous debian-installer versions
i was able to select that i want to use dselect, i'm not asking for
dselect to be the default package selection tool in debian-installer,
but i think many people love dselect (i do!) and also want to use it
in sarge to install packages etc., even if there is something "new"
or "better" ;) ... please consider to ask the user who is installing
the system what frontend to apt he want to select packages (like you
did in previous debian installer versions).

best regards,

Received: (at 281805-done) by bugs.debian.org; 9 Jun 2005 21:39:01 +0000
>From joey@kitenet.net Thu Jun 09 14:39:00 2005
Return-path: <joey@kitenet.net>
Received: from kitenet.net [] (postfix)
	by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
	id 1DgUjs-0000Ju-00; Thu, 09 Jun 2005 14:39:00 -0700
Received: from dragon.kitenet.net (dpc6682244174.direcpc.com [])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client CN "Joey Hess", Issuer "Joey Hess" (verified OK))
	by kitenet.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D503E17DD2
	for <281805-done@bugs.debian.org>; Thu,  9 Jun 2005 21:38:56 +0000 (GMT)
Received: by dragon.kitenet.net (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id B323E6E1A8; Thu,  9 Jun 2005 17:38:47 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 17:38:47 -0400
From: Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org>
To: 281805-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: rejected
Message-ID: <20050609213847.GA28234@kitenet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="0OAP2g/MAC+5xKAE"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
Delivered-To: 281805-done@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 
	(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,ONEWORD autolearn=no 

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I don't think that adding a question to use dselect is worthwhile,
sorry. Users who want dselect can choose not to install and software at
tasksel, and run dselect by hand.

see shy jo

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)



Reply to: