Frans Pop wrote: > On Sunday 15 July 2007 17:52, José L. Redrejo Rodríguez wrote: >> No problem. I will remove it. As you said my intention is not to use it >> with the official Debian installer, but with the one we customize at >> LinEx (www.gnulinex.org). I didn't know about >> http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2007/07/msg00324.html, so I'll >> upload a new version without it a.s.a.p. > > Thank you for your prompt answer and your understanding. I have no doubt > that your intentions were good and it was not my intention to be harsh, > but there is a significant release management cost associated with any > udeb and packaging udebs has its own complexities. > For those reasons the general policy is to not accept udebs into the > official archives unless there is a demonstrated benefit and consensus > that adding them is worth that cost. > > I do however feel that it is absolutely not unreasonable to expect DDs to > contact the D-I team when they do something that so obviously affects (or > at least potentially affects) the installer before making changes in The problem is that nobody sees as obvious that the addition of a udeb affects the installer. Probably most of the DDs and maintaners have no idea about D-I issues, development and what affects it, let alone about udebs. For most people is just another package which is in the archive and the people expect it to be absolutely 100% non-intrusive, just like it would be for any regular deb. One more thing, since these packages went through NEW and were approved, is very likely that ftp masters aren't aware of the issue, since they approved it. So, as I said, is not at all obvious and is the least expected thing and maybe is time to send an email to dd-announce and tell in a clear way to everyone about this issue since, iirc, this is the second unwanted udeb in the last month. > their packages, even if only as a matter of courtesy. Obviously this > applies in general, not only to the installer. > For that reason we have just agreed with FTP-masters that they will not > accept packages with new udebs anymore without checking with the D-I team > first. Hopefully that will catch such issues a bit earlier, eliminating > the need for such ugly bug reports. Heh, I didn't read this part before writing my answer... I guess I was right :-) -- Regards, EddyP ============================================= "Imagination is more important than knowledge" A.Einstein
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature