Bug#339283: marked as done ([Debian-ppc64-devel] Re: Package: installation-reports)
Your message dated Fri, 17 Mar 2006 05:02:10 -0800
with message-id <E1FKEao-0004zN-4y@spohr.debian.org>
and subject line Bug#339283: fixed in base-installer 1.50
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)
--- Begin Message ---
Package: installer
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 05:06:25PM -0600, John Engel wrote:
> cool.. I'll try the new build before filling out any installation reports. A couple other things I noticed:
> - The 32-bit kernel was installed by default unless I did the install in expert mode using expert64 (then i was given a choice on what kernel to install) or manually grab the 64-bit kernel off the cd and install it.
Mmm, base-installer seems to be broken, but Colin fixed it yesterday, not sure
if he uploaded it already or not.
> - I was using a virtual cd for the install so the installer couldn't detect a valid cdrom. I was able to execute a shell and load the ibmvscsic module and then everything went fine.
Ah, interesting, ... Will see how this can be fixed.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Source: base-installer
Source-Version: 1.50
We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
base-installer, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive:
base-installer_1.50.dsc
to pool/main/b/base-installer/base-installer_1.50.dsc
base-installer_1.50.tar.gz
to pool/main/b/base-installer/base-installer_1.50.tar.gz
base-installer_1.50_powerpc.udeb
to pool/main/b/base-installer/base-installer_1.50_powerpc.udeb
A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.
Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed. If you
have further comments please address them to 339283@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.
Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org> (supplier of updated base-installer package)
(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing ftpmaster@debian.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 12:45:07 +0000
Source: base-installer
Binary: base-installer
Architecture: source powerpc
Version: 1.50
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Debian Install System Team <debian-boot@lists.debian.org>
Changed-By: Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org>
Description:
base-installer - Install the base system (udeb)
Closes: 339283
Changes:
base-installer (1.50) unstable; urgency=low
.
* Add PPC970MP (actually PPC970*) and POWER5 to the list of powerpc64
systems (closes: #339283, http://launchpad.net/bugs/35116).
* Don't consider powerpc64 kernels usable on powerpc.
* Update mips for 2.6. There's no r5k-ip22 kernel package any more in 2.6,
but apparently the r4k-ip22 kernel works. Add r5k tests based on a
cpuinfo from http://lists.debian.org/debian-mips/2001/08/msg00107.html.
.
[ Updated translations ]
* Hindi (hi.po) by Nishant Sharma
* Albanian (sq.po) by Elian Myftiu
Files:
5cc9be95a08f8d8a4627d3975b21418c 843 debian-installer required base-installer_1.50.dsc
b3421d51090f6428e04bbee912a26705 188188 debian-installer required base-installer_1.50.tar.gz
a0d62db07c8df2f9a8e169e3c9fc17ee 136902 debian-installer required base-installer_1.50_powerpc.udeb
Package-Type: udeb
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEGrAu9t0zAhD6TNERAonuAJ0T0YVYeczTDN1g95t9scuXz9pqQwCcC+/Q
7/XmXDkrZG0c3hJyW/aWLjo=
=mIY3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--- End Message ---
Reply to: