Bug#858849: installation-reports: Successful Jessie installation with backported kernel 4.9.16-1+reiser4.0.1 on i915 system AMD64
Niltze,
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 8:48 AM, Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Jose R R <jose@metztli-it.com> (2017-03-29):
>> With all due respect, 99% of the build code for the debian-installer
>> is yours. As well as the build pulls 99% UDEBs from official debian
>> repositories.
>
> That doesn't mean that everything built on top of it has to be reported
> on Debian mailing lists and bug tracker. See derivative distributions,
> they have their own issue tracker, and only forward specific issues.
>
>> i.e., this is a Debian issue, not mine -- as I did not even touch that
>> code and/or modules -- which 1 month ago actually did work smooth:
>>
>> Netboot debian-installer was unable to load firmware from second USB
>> for wifi connection; accordingly, in another virtual screen, I mounted
>> the 2nd USB and manually copied the firmware directory onto the
>> installer environment /lib. d-i then detected the wifi signal, etc.
>>
>>
>> Second, report on this unofficial jessie-backports kernel
>> 4.9.16-1+reiser4.0.1 sheds light on the fact I experienced *no issue*
>> with module i915, as had been reported by (maintainer?): <
>> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=858078 > thus, in a
>> collateral manner, I am contributing to official debian development.
>
> If you want to reply to submitters/maintainers, reply to specific bug
> reports/threads, instead of sending lengthy mails to other people?
>
>> Finally, I am not requesting *any* support. I am simply reporting that
>> your d-i pulling official UDEBs actually have been successful, with
>> minor modifications and a few extra UDEBs of mine, in my installation
>> experience, following Debian documentation guidelines:
>
> I haven't put words in your mouth and suggested you were requesting some
> support. I'm just not convinced such reports are useful. If you
> encounter specific issues, report specific bug reports against the
> relevant component.
>
> debian-boot@ isn't and shouldn't be the destination of each and every
> thing connected to, or merely using, Debian Installer.
>
>> "We also encourage installation reports to be sent even if the
>> installation is successful, so that we can get as much information as
>> possible on the largest number of hardware configurations." <
>> https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/ch05s04.html.en#submit-bug
>> >
>
> Sure, with official images.
>
>> If you are still 'bothered' with my sporadic submissions, I encourage
>> you to modify the documentation to specifically exclude the glaring
>> omission.
>
> I could be adding a specific “we don't need reiser4-specific reports”
Please do add that phrase; thus removing any ambiguities and cover the
glaring omission in the Debian documentation.
That clarification will prevent other individuals -- who have
downloaded the netboot installer from SourceForge -- from potentially
reporting via the debian mechanism -- once the installation completes.
Additionally, appending “we don't need reiser4-specific reports” will
be a welcome *explicit* change in policy from other FOSS projects,
like GNU Parted, where the unspoken censorship on reiser4 bites anyone
who submits patches in support of the
'Batman Machine': Reiser4
< https://metztli.it/readOnlyEphemeral/Batman_Machine-Reiser4.pdf >
Again, thank you.
Best Professional Regards.
--
Jose R R
http://metztli.it
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download Debian-Reiser4 for AMD64 https://sf.net/projects/debian-reiser4/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Try at no charge http://b2evolution.net for http://OpenShift.com PaaS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
from our GitHub http://Nepohualtzintzin.com repository. Cloud the easy way!
Reply to: