Steve Langasek wrote: [snip] > > > 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. It's also better for chroots, where bootloaders are normally useless and can cause harm. Thiemo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature