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

Bug#397985: marked as done (debian-installer: use kexec for the first 'boot')



Your message dated Fri, 30 Aug 2013 12:31:32 +0200
with message-id <201308301231.43982.holger@layer-acht.org>
and subject line dealing with old debian-installer bugs
has caused the Debian Bug report #397985,
regarding debian-installer: use kexec for the first 'boot'
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 this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
397985: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=397985
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: debian-installer
Severity: wishlist

I think it would be nice if the first boot of the newly installed system
would occur with kexec, avoiding BIOS and boot loader "loss of time".


-- System Information:
Debian Release: 4.0
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.18-1-686
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
tags 690919 + moreinfo
tags 696418 + confirmed
reassign 715158 pcmciautils-udeb
severity 561734 wishlist
tags 690918 +wontfix
thanks

Hi,

thank you for submitting bug reports concering debian-installer, much 
appreciated.

I read through all the bugs mentioned here (and I'm sure they were read by 
several people at the time they were submitted) and am closing them now as/if
- they (finally) indicated success and/or
- I know from first hand experience that the functionality is working in 
Wheezy and/or
- they only contained very little information and/or
- they contained user errors and/or
- they have been from a development phase where things were not stable and/or
- they are very old and/or
- they are wishlist but rather special + exotic and not have been acted on for 
years. (See http://blog.liw.fi/posts/wishlist-bugs/ why it's often useful to 
close wishlist bugs.)

If I've closed a bug incorrectly please do reply (it's easy to reopen and I'll 
do if requested) or just file a new one - and that's often better, as the bug 
log will be clearer and shorter and not contain cruft.


cheers,
        Holger

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


--- End Message ---

Reply to: