Re: RFC: discover 1 -> 2 transition plan for Debian
On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 08:47:09PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 11:46:29PM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> > type old name new name delta
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > binary discover-udeb -> discover1-udeb (NEW)
> > binary dicsover-data-udeb discover1-data-udeb (NEW)
> >
> > binary discover2-udeb discover-udeb (changed, new name existed)
> > binary discover2-data-udeb -> discover-data-udeb (changed, new name existed)
>
> Petter, we discussed this. I don't think discover2 should be the default
> discover used in d-i. It's not tested, and in my own private testing I
> ran up against errors that aren't present in discover1. I do not want to
> break d-i by using discover2 at this late a date. I'm sorry. discover1
> tests fine with kernel 2.6 on my system, and if the user decides to
> install discover afterwards, they'll get discover2 anyway. I see no
> point in introducing regressions in the hardware detection system at
> this point. discover2's database has not been filled out and tested yet.
> This needs to happen before it's ready for d-i.
Sorry, I got a little panicked when I saw the above. I talked to Joey
Hess on IRC, and he told me that the plan is to use discover2 as the
default for 2.6, which sounds perfect to me. I'll try get some work
rollling on that too, if possible. Sorry for misunderstanding.
- David Nusinow
Reply to: