Re: [D-I] Supporting 2.6.14 kernels in base-installer
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 12:35:03AM +0100, Erik van Konijnenburg wrote:
> > I think the best would be for Erik to comment on this, CCing this to him now.
> To summarise: we can reduce dependencies and make the footprint smaller,
> but at a cost in building effort and the stability that comes with
> mature packages. A consequence is that it would take longer to build
> new features such as swsusp. It's a tradeoff; I would appreciate input
> on which aspect is most important for etch.
Thanks for your reply.
I am not sure, but i feel that the rewriting or whatever to use only perl-base
would be needed only once we are sure it is going to be part of base or not.
This is a choice, and i have the feeling that the 2.4 upgrade path makes
initramfs-tools more suitable as default, altough i believe choice is good.