Re: D-I Etch+1/2 kernel selection
Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl> writes:
> (Dropping CCs to d-release/kernel/cd.)
>
> On Monday 04 February 2008, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> Those patches looks OK for commiting right now from my point of view.
>
> I want at least confirmation that this will actually be the way we're going
> to do Etch+1/2. I've also just sent a mail to Ted Tso with some questions
> regarding the inode_size issue.
Even if we don't go this way it would allow us to add support for
lenny to install etch anyway. This is a nice feature as we had for sarge.
>> > I then added a hack in base-installer which does the following.
>> > If the (new) debconf template "base-installer/kernel/altmeta" has a
>> > value (e.g. 'etchnhalf'), it will add new potential kernel defaults
>> > before the the "normal" kernel defaults, with that value postfixed.
>>
>> I think that prefmeta (preferred metapackage) is more logical for the
>> template name from my point of view.
>
> Not sure if I agree that prefmeta would be better than altmeta, but I have
> no strong feeling about it. I'll wait for other opinions.
Great.
<...>
> More important is that these changes may very well impact your release
> planning, depending on how quickly we get the needed responses.
>
> Note that we could delay the patches for a next Beta (based on 2.6.24), but
> that would be a pity if they decide to go for 2.6.22 instead. In that case,
> if the patches go in before the first Beta, we would not need to do an
> extra release.
I share same feeling. I'd prefer to delay the releasing and put all
needed patches in on Beta1 then delay the patches.
--
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://otavio.ossystems.com.br
---------------------------------------------
"Microsoft sells you Windows ... Linux gives
you the whole house."
Reply to: