-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I watched the video, but FAIme probably does not satisfy the needs of 95% of
users in my opinion. This is because if you think about serious business,
commercial users and professionally administrators, they probably use the
text-mode installer usually. What exactly are their needs and which packages
they have on their system would be a business-secret, so they aren't really
allowed to tell the details to some web-service, because they want an
auto-generated OS-image or installation-CD.
This is why FAI should be integrated into DI, DI in a way is the natural
front-end for debian-installation, and thus it would be the easiest way to
generate FAI config-space according to their needs for many, say you
simulate the installation only in favour of FAI-config. If FAI-DI covers all
the options one could normally realise with debian-installer, it would be
95%, because FAI probably provides some more options, DI doesn't, not even in
expert-mode, simply because of the concept.
Another remark is, that it is not really serious to include backports into
the stable branch of Debian. This is the case because Backports are derived
from the testing software-branch, and testing-branch is derived from the
unstable-branch, from where the packages migrate to testing automatically.
Thus packages in backports have not necessarily received the proper amount of
testing in all of their aspects and details, and they could still be buggy.
In this respect it is the safe choice, to integrate backports into the
oldstable-branch only, otherwise production-quality of the software-mix cannot
really be guaranteed. In oldstable you have backports from the stable-branch,
so you can expect them to be stable, and well-enough tested, so this might
be a nice and attractive option.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----