On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 10:06:17AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 12:07:44PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: <snip/> > > think, is that the installer team needs to be able to change their > > structure relatively frequently; for example, the exact balance of > > modules in various udebs affects whether it's possible to build > > installer floppies and other media with space restrictions. > > Historically, having the udebs be controlled by the d-i team made sense. > > This goes away by having single .udeb per module, and a .udeb dependency tree > generated by or in the same way as the depmod stuff. > > Is it really all that much complicated to teach the infrastructure to handle > bigger number of .udeb packages, than doing loads of hacky workaround like the > above ? Single module udeb will make it possible to include easily non-standaard hardware. And also easy excluding hardware with license quirks. Cheers Geert Stappers P.S. Kernel mailing list and volatile ML are not (yet?) cross-posted.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature