Re: sarge3 kernel build & r3
Frans Pop <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> (Also replying to other mails about Sarge support in Etch installer)
> On Wednesday 07 June 2006 20:42, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Frans Pop <email@example.com> writes:
>> I ment that when you select sarge in choose-mirror in expert mode you
>> get the inofficial list and if you choose etch/etch+1/sid you get the
>> official one.
> Ah, OK.
> The Etch installer currently has extremely basic support for Sarge
> installations which has only really been tested for i386. The real
> downside of using the Etch installer for Sarge is that, although a
> current kernel will be used for the installation, it will still install
> 2.6.8 for the target system (it does not use any backports).
> This means that there is a relatively high chance that the user will
> experience problems on the reboot into the target system.
Basicaly 100% since the user would/should have used the sarge
installer if possible. But adding backports to the sources.list and
installing a newer kernel is easily explained in a HowTo and done by
the user on the fly. I don't think that this is a real show
stopper. One could think about adding backports to sources.list
automatically though if the testing installer is used to install
> I'm currently unsure if the udeb that adds Sarge support for the Etch
> installer will make it into the final release of d-i for Etch. The main
> reasons are:
> - increasing differences between the Sarge 2.6.8 and current kernels;
That is a reason for.
> - questionable usability of systems installed this way;
Hmm, what is questionable? A stable system with a fresher kernel is
totaly usable. A lot, if not the majority, of users do this.
> - Sarge support may be incompatible with changes needed to realize
> persistent device naming for harddrives.
What changes are those? Is Debian finaly going to use LABEL= or UUID=
in the generated fstab?
Isn't that also just limited to kernel, udev and fstab? udev is also
available on backports so there should be no big problem there.
> If it does make it, there will be disclaimers shown to the user after
> mirror selection to the effect that there is only limited support and not
> to come complaining if there are problems on reboot.
Isn't it enough that you already need expert mode?
> To finally answer your question: I don't think we will offer the
> unofficial AMD64 mirrors in the Etch installer in this case, if only
> because the mirror selection happens _before_ the suite/codename is
That is a problem indeed.