Re: busybox in main
Roland Bauerschmidt wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 10:35:37PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> > The binary packages (installer modules) will not be going into
> > the main/binary-foo directories, and will not be in the Packages files or
> > anything, so we are going to feel free to ignore policy in them, much as
> > we would feel free to ignore policy if we had decided to use the RPM
> > package format as the *internal module format* of the debian installer.
> >
> > And sometimes I think that would have been easier. Sheesh.
>
> Is this a challenge for a flame war? Just kidding...
>
> Roland
>
Whats the point in following a policy that just gets in the road.
I really dont understand why our (the installer team) work has to get
pushed away into some dark hidden corner.
My personal opinion is that Joey is trying to make a compromise by
having a seperate area for installer packages, but as far as i know the
installer team has no idea whatsoever if or when there will be a
seperate area to put installer specific modules.
There is an internal deadline of a few months to be able to demonstrate
how the new installer might work, if we dont meet this deadline, presure
will be one to go back and revamp the old installer for woody. Is it too
much to expect that in a few months when binary packages are available
there will be somewhere official to put binary packages.
As far as busybox goes, it started of as a debian project for the
installer team (?) years ago and has grown to be quite popular in
embedded systems, it is a usefull package to have laying around, and i
dont see why people shouldnt be able to install it in binary form.
If policy prevents users from easily installing usefull emergency
utilities then it is clear to me at least then something is wrong with
policy.
Glenn
Reply to: