ubuntu-phone team mailing list archive

[Aat de Vries <aatdevries80@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello everybody,

I'm new here and now a bit confused about version numbers.
In my case it was version 127, not 128, that wouldn't boot. Also, at 
http://system-image.ubuntu.com/ubuntu-touch/devel-proposed/flo/ (i'm 
using a nexus 7) the highest version is 128. Yet you are discussing 129. 
Could somebody help me understand this?

Thanks in advance,

Aat de Vries.

On 03/11/2015 02:01 AM, Alan O'Dannel wrote:
> Thanks Victor,  I'll reload. Alan
>
>
> On Tuesday, March 10, 2015 5:51:51 PM PDT, Victor Thompson wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 6:35 PM, Ricardo Salveti de Araujo <
> > ricardo.salveti@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Michał Sawicz
> > > <michal.sawicz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > W dniu 10.03.2015 o 20:41, Alan O'Dannel pisze:
> > > >> Too late. Just found out the hard way.
> > > >
> > > > Confirmed, it never gets past the logo.
> > > >
> > > > To recover, boot to recovery and use
> > > > $ ubuntu-device-flash --revision=127 touch...
> > >
> > > The issue was basically because /sbin/initctl was removed from the
> > > image, making the boot to fail completely. inifinity pushed a fix in
> > > live-build and I just started to build 129, hopefully that should be
> > > all good again.
> > >
> > > Sorry for the noise, should hopefully be the last remaining bug that
> > > we got as a side effect of migrating desktop to systemd.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > --
> > > Ricardo Salveti de Araujo
> > I can confirm that image 129 works boots as expected.
> >
> > Victor Thompson