(Please don't put your reply at the bottom of a mail, but insert your reactions below the relevant paragraphs, and delete old text no longer needed to understand the reply. I've reorganized your reply for that.) On Sunday 15 July 2007 22:43, Craig Block wrote: > --- Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl> wrote: > > If you have ideas for that, they would be very welcome. Except for > > updating the documentation on the wiki [1], I don't really see what > > could be done about it. > > Debian Installer requires a Debian packaged kernel. The only way to > use your own kernel is to package and register it in the same manner as > a stock kernel. Building my own Debian package is not something I've > ever had the need or desire to do. Based on what I've read in the > Wiki, it doesn't look like a trivial task. If I can devise an easier > way, maybe I can contribute to the Wiki documentation. No, I agree it is not trivial. > Before d-i, Boot Floppies would just grab whatever image was in the > directory tree and install it, no questions asked. It was only a > matter of dropping-in your own image. You have to realize that D-I has a much more complex architecture than boot-floppies. The two are completely incomparable. This offers huge advantages when it comes to extensibility, but yes, it also has some disadvantages. But it really makes no sense to complain "xxx was possible with boot-floppies and thus should also be possible with D-I". > And, if history is any indication, Debian tends to wallow behind on > kernel releases. I don't think I agree with that characterization. Etch has 2.6.18, which was pretty current when Etch was released. Distributions have a pretty heavy responsibility when it comes to stabilizing a kernel for their releases, which means that using the very latest upstream is just not an option. Daily images have 2.6.21 and 2.6.22 is already available in unstable. > > What exactly do you mean by "exclude"? > > When I say, "exclude," I mean, "do not install." Yes, I got that much... > I can force d-i to do > that by removing entries from the status and Package files. Not a > graceful solution but it seems to work without issue other than a few > squawks in the syslog about missing packages. You still do not say _what_ you want to exclude and at what stage of the installation (base system, standard packages or additional tasks).
Attachment:
pgp13vGEZbPA_.pgp
Description: PGP signature