[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]


Hash: SHA1

Hello there,

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.



Reply to: