Distribution and support for Debian-502-i386-netinst

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
35 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Distribution and support for Debian-502-i386-netinst

Cherukuri, Shravan Kumar

Hi,

 

I have an image of Debian-502-i386-netinst-iso which I burned to a CD and tried to install the OS.

In the beginning everything was going on fine until the step where we select the mirror site to download.

At this point I was not able to download from the mirror websites that were displayed while installing the OS.

So I would like to know if Debian-502-i386-netinst is still supported and corresponding packages are available for download and installation.

Are there any mirrors from which I could install this OS? Any information regarding this would be highly helpful.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Thanks n Regards,

Shravan Kumar .C

Desk: 408-533-9346 | Lab: 408-533-9864 | Mobile: +1 408-458-6692

 

 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Distribution and support for Debian-502-i386-netinst

Ben Hutchings-3
On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 04:10 +0000, Cherukuri, Shravan Kumar wrote:

> Hi,
>
>  
>
> I have an image of Debian-502-i386-netinst-iso which I burned to a CD
> and tried to install the OS.
>
> In the beginning everything was going on fine until the step where we
> select the mirror site to download.
>
> At this point I was not able to download from the mirror websites that
> were displayed while installing the OS.
>
> So I would like to know if Debian-502-i386-netinst is still supported
> and corresponding packages are available for download and
> installation.
Old netinst images generally do not work, since the packages they depend
on may be replaced at point releases.  If you really want Debian 5.0
('lenny') then you should use the netinst image for the latest point
release, 5.0.9.

If you have no particular reason to favour Debian 5.0 then I would
recommend the current stable release, Debian 6.0 - more specifically the
point release, Debian 6.0.3.

> Are there any mirrors from which I could install this OS? Any
> information regarding this would be highly helpful.

http://www.debian.org/CD/ [6.0.3 and testing]
http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/archive/ [older versions]

Ben.

--
Ben Hutchings
The world is coming to an end. Please log off.

signature.asc (845 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Distribution and support for Debian-502-i386-netinst

Adam Borowski-3
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 06:39:28AM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 04:10 +0000, Cherukuri, Shravan Kumar wrote:
> > I have an image of Debian-502-i386-netinst-iso which I burned to a CD
> > and tried to install the OS.
>
> Old netinst images generally do not work, since the packages they depend
> on may be replaced at point releases.  If you really want Debian 5.0
> ('lenny') then you should use the netinst image for the latest point
> release, 5.0.9.

Which seems like quite a nasty problem.

For example: you download the current point release, burn it to a CD
preparing to install a bunch of servers the next day...  then suddenly
there's a new stable update and installation mysteriously fails.

Wouldn't it be better to not delete superseded packages, at least for base?

--
1KB // Yo momma uses IPv4!

signature.asc (501 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Distribution and support for Debian-502-i386-netinst

Goswin von Brederlow-2
Adam Borowski <[hidden email]> writes:

> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 06:39:28AM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 04:10 +0000, Cherukuri, Shravan Kumar wrote:
>> > I have an image of Debian-502-i386-netinst-iso which I burned to a CD
>> > and tried to install the OS.
>>
>> Old netinst images generally do not work, since the packages they depend
>> on may be replaced at point releases.  If you really want Debian 5.0
>> ('lenny') then you should use the netinst image for the latest point
>> release, 5.0.9.
>
> Which seems like quite a nasty problem.
>
> For example: you download the current point release, burn it to a CD
> preparing to install a bunch of servers the next day...  then suddenly
> there's a new stable update and installation mysteriously fails.
>
> Wouldn't it be better to not delete superseded packages, at least for base?

Actually I have to disagree with Ben there. Netinst images, unlike the
netboot or businesscard images, are those you can install completly
without network access so they should always work. The Debian mirror is
only needed to install additional packages.

Worst case you install a base system first, then add a mirror to
sources.list and run tasksel manually.


The real question is why it fails to find any mirror. As a blind guess I
would think it is because of a key roll-over so the image can not verify
the signature of the archive anymore.

Cherukuri, could you give some more details about why or how it fails?
Maybe check the other consoles (alt-F3, alt-F4) for further output why
it won't accept any of the mirrors.

MfG
        Goswin


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/8762iizsrl.fsf@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Distribution and support for Debian-502-i386-netinst

Ben Hutchings-3
On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 16:13 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:

> Adam Borowski <[hidden email]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 06:39:28AM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 04:10 +0000, Cherukuri, Shravan Kumar wrote:
> >> > I have an image of Debian-502-i386-netinst-iso which I burned to a CD
> >> > and tried to install the OS.
> >>
> >> Old netinst images generally do not work, since the packages they depend
> >> on may be replaced at point releases.  If you really want Debian 5.0
> >> ('lenny') then you should use the netinst image for the latest point
> >> release, 5.0.9.
> >
> > Which seems like quite a nasty problem.
> >
> > For example: you download the current point release, burn it to a CD
> > preparing to install a bunch of servers the next day...  then suddenly
> > there's a new stable update and installation mysteriously fails.
> >
> > Wouldn't it be better to not delete superseded packages, at least for base?
>
> Actually I have to disagree with Ben there. Netinst images, unlike the
> netboot or businesscard images, are those you can install completly
> without network access so they should always work. The Debian mirror is
> only needed to install additional packages.
Oops, sorry for the misinformation.

> Worst case you install a base system first, then add a mirror to
> sources.list and run tasksel manually.
>
>
> The real question is why it fails to find any mirror. As a blind guess I
> would think it is because of a key roll-over so the image can not verify
> the signature of the archive anymore.
[...]

A stable release should always be signed with the same key, but there
has been an incorrect roll-over in the past (which was fixed but may
have regressed).

Ben.

--
Ben Hutchings
The world is coming to an end. Please log off.

signature.asc (845 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Distribution and support for Debian-502-i386-netinst

Marc Haber-3
In reply to this post by Adam Borowski-3
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 11:00:26 +0100, Adam Borowski
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>For example: you download the current point release, burn it to a CD
>preparing to install a bunch of servers the next day...  then suddenly
>there's a new stable update and installation mysteriously fails.
>
>Wouldn't it be better to not delete superseded packages, at least for base?

I would second that. A site I work for was severely bitten by the last
squeeze point release since the kernel ABI changed and the kernel
module udebs (loaded from a rsynced mirror) did not fit the (unsynced)
kernel/initrd from the PXE server any more, resulting in newly
deployed servers not even finding their disks.

Additionally, the new[1] tg3 driver broke compatibility with the tg3
chip built into IBM's HS12. The site in question would have rejected
the last point release for that reason, if it were possible to go
back.

Greetings
Marc

[1] Why the heck do we allow changes like this in stable point
releases?
--
-------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -----
Marc Haber         |   " Questions are the         | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany  |     Beginning of Wisdom "     | http://www.zugschlus.de/
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/E1RR8Ft-0004Mf-BG@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Distribution and support for Debian-502-i386-netinst

Ben Hutchings-3
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 09:08:17PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 11:00:26 +0100, Adam Borowski
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >For example: you download the current point release, burn it to a CD
> >preparing to install a bunch of servers the next day...  then suddenly
> >there's a new stable update and installation mysteriously fails.
> >
> >Wouldn't it be better to not delete superseded packages, at least for base?
>
> I would second that. A site I work for was severely bitten by the last
> squeeze point release since the kernel ABI changed and the kernel
> module udebs (loaded from a rsynced mirror) did not fit the (unsynced)
> kernel/initrd from the PXE server any more, resulting in newly
> deployed servers not even finding their disks.
 
I can't imagine why you would expect this to work.

> Additionally, the new[1] tg3 driver broke compatibility with the tg3
> chip built into IBM's HS12. The site in question would have rejected
> the last point release for that reason, if it were possible to go
> back.
>
> Greetings
> Marc
>
> [1] Why the heck do we allow changes like this in stable point
> releases?
 
Just point to the bug report and stop stirring.  I'm sorry this has
introduced a regression for these systems, but you have a workaround
and the backport enabled installation on many other systems.

Ben.

--
Ben Hutchings
We get into the habit of living before acquiring the habit of thinking.
                                                              - Albert Camus


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111117202633.GH3366@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Distribution and support for Debian-502-i386-netinst

Adam D. Barratt
In reply to this post by Marc Haber-3
On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 21:08 +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> Additionally, the new[1] tg3 driver broke compatibility with the tg3
> chip built into IBM's HS12.
[...]
> [1] Why the heck do we allow changes like this in stable point
> releases?

Increasing the range of hardware on which a Debian stable release is
usable can only be a good thing, imo (both with and without my SRM hat
on).  It's unfortunate that in this case it introduced a regression, but
the kernel team have been very good in the past about fixing such things
once they're aware of them.

Regards,

Adam


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1321562613.14865.8.camel@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Distribution and support for Debian-502-i386-netinst

Goswin von Brederlow-2
In reply to this post by Ben Hutchings-3
Ben Hutchings <[hidden email]> writes:

> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 09:08:17PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 11:00:26 +0100, Adam Borowski
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >For example: you download the current point release, burn it to a CD
>> >preparing to install a bunch of servers the next day...  then suddenly
>> >there's a new stable update and installation mysteriously fails.
>> >
>> >Wouldn't it be better to not delete superseded packages, at least for base?
>>
>> I would second that. A site I work for was severely bitten by the last
>> squeeze point release since the kernel ABI changed and the kernel
>> module udebs (loaded from a rsynced mirror) did not fit the (unsynced)
>> kernel/initrd from the PXE server any more, resulting in newly
>> deployed servers not even finding their disks.
>  
> I can't imagine why you would expect this to work.

The old kernel/initrd has the old kernel version so it would try to
download the udebs for the old version instead of the latest ones. Since
the packages are named differently they can coexist on the archive just
fine.

If the old udebs aren't deleted that should just work.

MfG
        Goswin


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/878vndbh0m.fsf@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Distribution and support for Debian-502-i386-netinst

Marc Haber-3
In reply to this post by Ben Hutchings-3
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 20:26:33 +0000, Ben Hutchings
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 09:08:17PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 11:00:26 +0100, Adam Borowski
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >For example: you download the current point release, burn it to a CD
>> >preparing to install a bunch of servers the next day...  then suddenly
>> >there's a new stable update and installation mysteriously fails.
>> >
>> >Wouldn't it be better to not delete superseded packages, at least for base?
>>
>> I would second that. A site I work for was severely bitten by the last
>> squeeze point release since the kernel ABI changed and the kernel
>> module udebs (loaded from a rsynced mirror) did not fit the (unsynced)
>> kernel/initrd from the PXE server any more, resulting in newly
>> deployed servers not even finding their disks.
>
>I can't imagine why you would expect this to work.

I wouldn't. The site was just surprised by the point release and did
notice the deployment failure well before the announcement of the
point release was received. This deployment setup has been in effect
for a while, so I'd guess that this point release was the first to
break compatibility between older kernel/initrd and current kernel
udebs. If this is in fact the rule, I need to investgate why things
used to work for years, but not having older point releases around any
more, this is kind of hard to reproduce.

>> Additionally, the new[1] tg3 driver broke compatibility with the tg3
>> chip built into IBM's HS12. The site in question would have rejected
>> the last point release for that reason, if it were possible to go
>> back.
>>
>> Greetings
>> Marc
>>
>> [1] Why the heck do we allow changes like this in stable point
>> releases?
>
>Just point to the bug report and stop stirring.

Do you really think that this tone to users of your software will get
you any friends? You're being unnecessarily rude and impolite.

#645308, by the way.

>  I'm sorry this has
>introduced a regression for these systems, but you have a workaround
>and the backport enabled installation on many other systems.

In nearly all non-kernel issues, we don't care zilch about enhancing
support and new features if there is the slightest chance of breaking
existing setups inside a stable release. I fail to see why the kernel
is so special that it warrants an exception. In fact, the kernel is
the last component of a distribution I would be willing to accept a
"more features" upgrade in a stable point release because of the vast
variety of things that can go wrong when a driver is updated _and_ the
fact that there is no way to install x.y.z-1 after the release of
x.y.z.

Greetings
Marc
--
-------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -----
Marc Haber         |   " Questions are the         | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany  |     Beginning of Wisdom "     | http://www.zugschlus.de/
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/E1RRRmD-0008Id-BC@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Distribution and support for Debian-502-i386-netinst

Marc Haber-3
In reply to this post by Adam D. Barratt
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 20:43:32 +0000, "Adam D. Barratt"
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>but
>the kernel team have been very good in the past about fixing such things
>once they're aware of them.

Why does the kernel team get an execption that is unanonimously denied
to other, much less important parts of the distribution?

Greetings
Marc
--
-------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -----
Marc Haber         |   " Questions are the         | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany  |     Beginning of Wisdom "     | http://www.zugschlus.de/
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/E1RRRnD-0008Ii-Mo@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Distribution and support for Debian-502-i386-netinst

Steve McIntyre
In reply to this post by Marc Haber-3
Marc Haber wrote:

>On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 20:26:33 +0000, Ben Hutchings
><[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>I can't imagine why you would expect this to work.
>
>I wouldn't. The site was just surprised by the point release and did
>notice the deployment failure well before the announcement of the
>point release was received. This deployment setup has been in effect
>for a while, so I'd guess that this point release was the first to
>break compatibility between older kernel/initrd and current kernel
>udebs. If this is in fact the rule, I need to investgate why things
>used to work for years, but not having older point releases around any
>more, this is kind of hard to reproduce.

snapshot.debian.org is very helpful if you want to try to
reproduce/test this kind of thing.

...

>>Just point to the bug report and stop stirring.
>
>Do you really think that this tone to users of your software will get
>you any friends? You're being unnecessarily rude and impolite.

You already posted a bug report and complained at Ben there, please
don't continue here.

>#645308, by the way.
>
>>  I'm sorry this has
>>introduced a regression for these systems, but you have a workaround
>>and the backport enabled installation on many other systems.
>
>In nearly all non-kernel issues, we don't care zilch about enhancing
>support and new features if there is the slightest chance of breaking
>existing setups inside a stable release. I fail to see why the kernel
>is so special that it warrants an exception. In fact, the kernel is
>the last component of a distribution I would be willing to accept a
>"more features" upgrade in a stable point release because of the vast
>variety of things that can go wrong when a driver is updated _and_ the
>fact that there is no way to install x.y.z-1 after the release of
>x.y.z.

The kernel team have done an excellent job of backporting drivers for
newer hardware for a number of releases now. Mistakes occasionally
happen...

In terms of *why* those updates happen, that's quite simple: if Debian
won't run on a user's new hardware, that user will typically simply
ignore Debian. In (most) other packages, this isn't so critical - the
latest shiny version doesn't matter that much. Up-to-date hardware
support is one of the biggest issues I see reported about Debian with
our long release cycles, so I'm very supportive of people like Ben who
are directly spending a lot of their time on trying to solve the
problem.

--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                [hidden email]
"Because heaters aren't purple!" -- Catherine Pitt


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/E1RRSKB-00089n-D9@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Distribution and support for Debian-502-i386-netinst

Ben Hutchings-3
In reply to this post by Marc Haber-3
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 05:59:59PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 20:43:32 +0000, "Adam D. Barratt"
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >but
> >the kernel team have been very good in the past about fixing such things
> >once they're aware of them.
>
> Why does the kernel team get an execption that is unanonimously denied
> to other, much less important parts of the distribution?
 
You can easily upgrade a userland package from backports after
installation.  You can't do that with the kernel if the installer
doesn't support your disk or network controller.  (It is possible
to use a newer installer to install stable, but that's much more
prone to break or to differ from the installation manual.)

Ben.

--
Ben Hutchings
We get into the habit of living before acquiring the habit of thinking.
                                                              - Albert Camus


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111118194824.GL3366@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Distribution and support for Debian-502-i386-netinst

Marc Haber-3
On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 19:48:24 +0000, Ben Hutchings
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 05:59:59PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 20:43:32 +0000, "Adam D. Barratt"
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >but
>> >the kernel team have been very good in the past about fixing such things
>> >once they're aware of them.
>>
>> Why does the kernel team get an execption that is unanonimously denied
>> to other, much less important parts of the distribution?
>
>You can easily upgrade a userland package from backports after
>installation.  You can't do that with the kernel if the installer
>doesn't support your disk or network controller.  (It is possible
>to use a newer installer to install stable, but that's much more
>prone to break or to differ from the installation manual.)

The solution would be to offer additional install media with
additional support. The mere chance of introducing a regression is a
risk which I think should not be taken by Debian.

Grüße
Marc
--
-------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -----
Marc Haber         |   " Questions are the         | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany  |     Beginning of Wisdom "     | http://www.zugschlus.de/
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/E1RRilR-0002Al-Nv@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Distribution and support for Debian-502-i386-netinst

Goswin von Brederlow-2
Marc Haber <[hidden email]> writes:

> On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 19:48:24 +0000, Ben Hutchings
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 05:59:59PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 20:43:32 +0000, "Adam D. Barratt"
>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> >but
>>> >the kernel team have been very good in the past about fixing such things
>>> >once they're aware of them.
>>>
>>> Why does the kernel team get an execption that is unanonimously denied
>>> to other, much less important parts of the distribution?
>>
>>You can easily upgrade a userland package from backports after
>>installation.  You can't do that with the kernel if the installer
>>doesn't support your disk or network controller.  (It is possible
>>to use a newer installer to install stable, but that's much more
>>prone to break or to differ from the installation manual.)
>
> The solution would be to offer additional install media with
> additional support. The mere chance of introducing a regression is a
> risk which I think should not be taken by Debian.
>
> Grüße
> Marc

Or just keeping the old kernel and modules so the old images remain
functional. I think that would be the best solution.

MfG
        Goswin


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87hb202ini.fsf@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Distribution and support for Debian-502-i386-netinst

Goswin von Brederlow-2
In reply to this post by Steve McIntyre
Steve McIntyre <[hidden email]> writes:

> Marc Haber wrote:
>>On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 20:26:33 +0000, Ben Hutchings
>><[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>I can't imagine why you would expect this to work.
>>
>>I wouldn't. The site was just surprised by the point release and did
>>notice the deployment failure well before the announcement of the
>>point release was received. This deployment setup has been in effect
>>for a while, so I'd guess that this point release was the first to
>>break compatibility between older kernel/initrd and current kernel
>>udebs. If this is in fact the rule, I need to investgate why things
>>used to work for years, but not having older point releases around any
>>more, this is kind of hard to reproduce.
>
> snapshot.debian.org is very helpful if you want to try to
> reproduce/test this kind of thing.

I have never tried so: Can you use that with debian installed? Does it
have a menu entry for it or do you need to manually figure out the right
url to give?

MfG
        Goswin


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87d3co2ik4.fsf@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Distribution and support for Debian-502-i386-netinst

Marc Haber-3
In reply to this post by Goswin von Brederlow-2
On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 17:15:13 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>Marc Haber <[hidden email]> writes:
>> The solution would be to offer additional install media with
>> additional support. The mere chance of introducing a regression is a
>> risk which I think should not be taken by Debian.
>
>Or just keeping the old kernel and modules so the old images remain
>functional. I think that would be the best solution.

I would prefer to be able to download debian 6.0.2 even after 6.0.3's
release. We do this with oldstable, why don't we do this for point
releases?

Greetings
Marc
--
-------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -----
Marc Haber         |   " Questions are the         | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany  |     Beginning of Wisdom "     | http://www.zugschlus.de/
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/E1RRqiB-0003jX-N9@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Distribution and support for Debian-502-i386-netinst

Goswin von Brederlow-2
In reply to this post by Goswin von Brederlow-2
Goswin von Brederlow <[hidden email]> writes:

> Steve McIntyre <[hidden email]> writes:
>
>> Marc Haber wrote:
>>>On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 20:26:33 +0000, Ben Hutchings
>>><[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>I can't imagine why you would expect this to work.
>>>
>>>I wouldn't. The site was just surprised by the point release and did
>>>notice the deployment failure well before the announcement of the
>>>point release was received. This deployment setup has been in effect
>>>for a while, so I'd guess that this point release was the first to
>>>break compatibility between older kernel/initrd and current kernel
>>>udebs. If this is in fact the rule, I need to investgate why things
>>>used to work for years, but not having older point releases around any
>>>more, this is kind of hard to reproduce.
>>
>> snapshot.debian.org is very helpful if you want to try to
>> reproduce/test this kind of thing.
>
> I have never tried so: Can you use that with debian installed? Does it
                                               debian installer
> have a menu entry for it or do you need to manually figure out the right
> url to give?
>
> MfG
>         Goswin


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87y5vb4tqf.fsf@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Distribution and support for Debian-502-i386-netinst

Steve McIntyre
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 11:45:12PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:

>Goswin von Brederlow <[hidden email]> writes:
>
>> Steve McIntyre <[hidden email]> writes:
>>
>>> Marc Haber wrote:
>>>>On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 20:26:33 +0000, Ben Hutchings
>>>><[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>I can't imagine why you would expect this to work.
>>>>
>>>>I wouldn't. The site was just surprised by the point release and did
>>>>notice the deployment failure well before the announcement of the
>>>>point release was received. This deployment setup has been in effect
>>>>for a while, so I'd guess that this point release was the first to
>>>>break compatibility between older kernel/initrd and current kernel
>>>>udebs. If this is in fact the rule, I need to investgate why things
>>>>used to work for years, but not having older point releases around any
>>>>more, this is kind of hard to reproduce.
>>>
>>> snapshot.debian.org is very helpful if you want to try to
>>> reproduce/test this kind of thing.
>>
>> I have never tried so: Can you use that with debian installed? Does it
>                                               debian installer
>> have a menu entry for it or do you need to manually figure out the right
>> url to give?

You'd have to work it out, I think.

--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                [hidden email]
"Since phone messaging became popular, the young generation has lost the
 ability to read or write anything that is longer than one hundred and sixty
 characters."  -- Ignatios Souvatzis


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111119232036.GB3934@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Distribution and support for Debian-502-i386-netinst

Thomas Goirand-3
In reply to this post by Steve McIntyre
On 11/19/2011 01:34 AM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> In terms of *why* those updates happen, that's quite simple: if Debian
> won't run on a user's new hardware, that user will typically simply
> ignore Debian. In (most) other packages, this isn't so critical - the
> latest shiny version doesn't matter that much. Up-to-date hardware
> support is one of the biggest issues I see reported about Debian with
> our long release cycles, so I'm very supportive of people like Ben who
> are directly spending a lot of their time on trying to solve the
> problem.
>  
Thumbs up, applauding the above with my all of my 6 hands.

Thomas


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4EC8C568.50602@...

12