Re: new installer
- To: Dan Weber <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Cc: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: new installer
- From: Petter Reinholdtsen <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: 02 Oct 2003 13:43:00 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <20030927133127.GA10755@nuit.ca> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20030929232650.GS814@ftbfs.org> <email@example.com> <20030929233644.GT814@ftbfs.org> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20030929235702.GU814@ftbfs.org> <email@example.com>
> I think I need to review the steps on how he makes a bootfloppy like
> that. Since I want to be able to understand it externally before I
> reimplement in the DI-2.6.
I suspect your approach in making d-i handle 2.6 kernels is not the
best nor the most efficient way. Duplicating the d-i CVS, and trying
to fork the packages, instead of supplying patches to the current d-i
CVS, seem like a inefficient approach.
I believe you should consider adding hooks and generic solutions to
the official d-i instead of trying to replicate what is being done in
the official d-i.
I told you this on IRC earlier, but just wanted to repeat it here on
the mailing list, to make sure you take it into account.