boot-floppies status from an insider (was Re: Deficiencies in Debian)
Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@pasteur.fr> writes:
> I am on debian-boot for a long time. The truth is that a lot of people are
> doing small things but nobody leads. No management. No decisions.
I would agree with this. Enrique would probably appreciate someone
taking over management and coordination of boot-floppies.
> The current package does not compile (for nobody)
True. At least I just recently fixed my documentation stuff.
> and there are important design decisions (two are specially
> important: how to split the rescue disk for the larger kernel 2.2
> and how to replace the old Tasks/Profiles system, which everybody
> criticiezs, but nobody replaces) which are pending.
Untrue. Both of these are resolved but not completely implemented.
Regarding boot/root, we've decided simply to build a 1.4k image for
boot, and another 1.4k image for root. CD-ROM booting should be able
to use a 2.8k El Torito (or equivalent) single image for both. TFTP
shouldn't have a big problem with this scheme either.
Regarding tasks/profiles, Martin Babinsky (sp) has spear-headed a
meta-packages based effort, which seems to be on it's way. Now we
need a new GUI to allow users to select their tasks and profiles, and
then testing. In this flow, newbies can skip dselect altogether.
Here's my unofficial boot-floppies TODO:
* build for all supported arches
* eliminate all dselect acquisition methods aside from apt and
possibly mountable (for NFS, which apt doesn't handle -- socks
also not handled by apt but I don't know if we care)
* GUI for apt's sources.list configuration
* GUI for tasks/profiles (see above)
* better lilo configuration (borrow from slackware perhaps?)
* close bugs!
* nifty stuff like TFTP and and serial console installation should be
supported on all possible architectures
(TFTP images may require some software in Debian which is not currently
available)
* update documentation (too early to do this)
--
.....Adam Di Carlo....adam@onShore.com.....<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
Reply to: