Bug#418043: closed by Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl> (Re: Bug#418043: acpi=off versus noacpi bootparam)
reopen 418043
> There is no problem here. The submitter seems to think that this
parameter
> is needed by all users of SATA, which is not the case. There is a problem
> with kernel support for his hardware, but that is unrelated to the
> installer or its documentation.
Heh????
you don't read very well, Frans. The sata thing and the acpi thing are
two *completely* *separate* issues and I never implied they were related!!
Issue Nr. 1: (minor issue) on the same installation cd help page where
it suggests to use noacpi if the system hangs it should also say that
you might alternatively need to use acpi=off instead
Issue Nr. 2: Grub installed to the first *ide* disk without asking even
though I installed the entire system to my first sata disk and didn't
even specify any mount points for the ide drive. The fact that the
debian installer will do this is not documented in the guide, in the
dialogue or anywhere else. This cost me a couple hours, because for me,
the system wouldn't boot and I didn't know why.
Now tell me, Frannsie-Boy, what makes you think that I believe the acpi
paramater is needed by "all users of SATA"? That's pretty typical of
developers, not really reading the carefully written bug report, jumping
the gun thinking that users are stupid and launching a flame. I'm a
developer too (glunarclock and iptrafficvolume) and I think this part of
the hacker culture (flame first, think and ask questions later) is
pretty pathetic. I think you owe me an apology...
-j
Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report
> #418043: acpi=off versus noacpi bootparam,
> which was filed against the installation-reports package.
>
> It has been closed by Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl>.
>
> Their explanation is attached below. If this explanation is
> unsatisfactory and you have not received a better one in a separate
> message then please contact Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl> by replying
> to this email.
>
> Debian bug tracking system administrator
> (administrator, Debian Bugs database)
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: Bug#418043: acpi=off versus noacpi bootparam
> From:
> Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl>
> Date:
> Sun, 15 Apr 2007 17:26:36 +0200
> To:
> 418043-done@bugs.debian.org
>
> To:
> 418043-done@bugs.debian.org
>
> Received:
> (at 418043-done) by bugs.debian.org; 15 Apr 2007 15:27:08 +0000
> Return-path:
> <elendil@planet.nl>
> Received:
> from psmtp08.wxs.nl ([195.121.247.22]) by rietz.debian.org with esmtp
> (Exim 4.50) id 1Hd6dA-00029U-A2 for 418043-done@bugs.debian.org; Sun, 15
> Apr 2007 15:27:08 +0000
> Received:
> from strider.fjphome.nl (ip545593b6.speed.planet.nl [84.85.147.182]) by
> psmtp08.wxs.nl (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.15 (built Nov 14
> 2006)) with ESMTP id <0JGJ001N4PKCUM@psmtp08.wxs.nl> for
> 418043-done@bugs.debian.org; Sun, 15 Apr 2007 17:26:37 +0200 (MEST)
> In-reply-to:
> <[🔎] 20070415150000.GW9913@gpm.stappers.nl>
> Message-ID:
> <200704151726.36720.elendil@planet.nl>
> MIME-Version:
> 1.0
> Content-type:
> text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> Content-transfer-encoding:
> 7BIT
> Content-disposition:
> inline
> User-Agent:
> KMail/1.9.5
> References:
> <[🔎] 20070406133230.169700@gmx.net> <[🔎] 20070414202625.44190@gmx.net>
> <[🔎] 20070415150000.GW9913@gpm.stappers.nl>
> X-Spam-Checker-Version:
> SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on
> rietz.debian.org
> X-Spam-Status:
> No, hits=-5.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER, RCVD_IN_SORBS
> autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
>
>
> On Sunday 15 April 2007 17:00, Geert Stappers wrote:
>> 0. The zeroth problem was booting. Somewhere in the help where you
>> find it right away it says to use noacpi if the system hangs. I tried
>> that and it didn't work. In another spot more buried (I think in the
>> special parameter section) it says use acpi=off. Well, only the
>> acpi=off worked.
>
> There is no problem here. The submitter seems to think that this parameter
> is needed by all users of SATA, which is not the case. There is a problem
> with kernel support for his hardware, but that is unrelated to the
> installer or its documentation.
Reply to: