[
Date Prev
][
Date Next
] [
Thread Prev
][
Thread Next
] [
Date Index
] [
Thread Index
]
Bug#785457: cloud.debian.org: AMI don't need getty
To
: Ognyan Kulev <
ognyan@ognyankulev.com
>,
785457@bugs.debian.org
, James Bromberger <
james@rcpt.to
>
Subject
: Bug#785457: cloud.debian.org: AMI don't need getty
From
: Anders Ingemann <
anders@ingemann.de
>
Date
: Mon, 18 May 2015 16:07:19 +0200
Message-id
: <
[🔎]
CAMcOGXGxt8-r27_k55G8NYDHYudngYLAnC4GoTo39cwNDFdKwQ@mail.gmail.com
>
Reply-to
: Anders Ingemann <
anders@ingemann.de
>,
785457@bugs.debian.org
In-reply-to
: <
[🔎]
5559EFAC.6000304@ognyankulev.com
>
References
: <
[🔎]
CAMcOGXESHxmSDtpDZyj322jyx0JXfUJv74rN70dyBRW3+r-vxQ@mail.gmail.com
> <
[🔎]
20150518090821.GA21405@bashton004
> <
[🔎]
5559EC6A.9070207@ognyankulev.com
> <
[🔎]
5559EFAC.6000304@ognyankulev.com
>
but the reality is that getty processes exist in the official Jessie HVM AMI
Ooh! And I know why :-)
The HVM AMIs are generated from James Brombergers fork, which most likely does not have those adjustments.
OK, the issue here is then that James and I need to get together and figure out this merge (which is rather big, hence the delay).
Reply to:
debian-cloud@lists.debian.org
Anders Ingemann (on-list)
Anders Ingemann (off-list)
References
:
Bug#785457: (no subject)
From:
Anders Ingemann <anders@ingemann.de>
Bug#785457: (no subject)
From:
Marcin Kulisz <debian@kulisz.net>
Bug#785457: cloud.debian.org: AMI don't need getty
From:
Ognyan Kulev <ognyan@ognyankulev.com>
Bug#785457: cloud.debian.org: AMI don't need getty
From:
Ognyan Kulev <ognyan@ognyankulev.com>
Prev by Date:
Bug#785457: cloud.debian.org: AMI don't need getty
Next by Date:
Bug#785457: cloud.debian.org: AMI don't need getty
Previous by thread:
Bug#785457: cloud.debian.org: AMI don't need getty
Next by thread:
Bug#785457: cloud.debian.org: AMI don't need getty
Index(es):
Date
Thread