On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 11:24:44PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > * Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> [2004-04-07 00:04]: > > On Tue, Apr 06, 2004 at 02:12:03PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > > > debootstrap installs delo (the DECstation boot loader) on all mipsel > > > systems, even though only DECstations need it. I seem to recall a > > > discussion about removing all boot loaders from debootstrap since it's > > > d-i's task to install them. What was the conclusion of this discussion? > > Whatever d-i needs is basically fine. > Well, I think it's kinda ugly to install delo on a mipsel sub-arch > which doesn't need it at all because it has its own boot loader. How > do people from other arch think about this? I intend to request > removal from delo from debootstrap, but maybe we should do the same > for other bootloaders. If d-i were responsible for installing bootloaders, debootstrap probably wouldn't have been broken on alpha for beta3. Even though there are no plans to change aboot's dependencies further, and it's currently the only bootloader for alpha that's packaged for Debian, I still think leaving bootloading solely to d-i is a good idea. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature