Re: Bug#396365: please add a gdb .udeb, for easier debugging inside d-i
Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:
>> Another alternative can be use something like edeb for embeed
>> devices. That would be a clear option then use udeb for both. Using
>> another group of packages would make both worlds happy and make both
>> team lives easier. One wouldn't affect the other with their respective
>> decisions.
>
> My belief is that, once post etch we have support for multiple udeb sources,
> we should split the archive thus :
>
> - the libraries and support package (like parted) in a generic archive.
> - the debian-installer packages in a debian-installer archive.
Agree on that. While those (libraries) will still need coordination
since they will directly affect d-i.
> - the kernel modules in a separate archive, of which there would be one by
> kernel version (upstream+abi), so as to keep d-i images alive even when
> new kernel versions are pushed in the archive. Further separation into
> flavours may help low memory systems on arches with a lot of flavours.
The biggest problem here is that will looks like we'll support all
those combinations regarting security and also bug fixing and this
won't be true... that can be used if it stay just as a sid resource...
> But let's discuss this post etch. I am thinking of doing a fosdem presentation
> of my ideas, preferably with proof of concept, which should satisfy all the
> need for discussion and implementation details, and this happening at the
> start of the etch+1 devel cycle will make sure we can think about it without
> being in a rush.
Indeed.
--
O T A V I O S A L V A D O R
---------------------------------------------
E-mail: otavio@debian.org UIN: 5906116
GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855
Home Page: http://www.freedom.ind.br/otavio
---------------------------------------------
"Microsoft gives you Windows ... Linux gives
you the whole house."
Reply to: