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

Re: 2.6.12 is in testing

Sven Luther wrote:
> Nope, but i don't think there is a real problem in making d-i kernel
> .udebs working for d-i, if said kernels already worked outside of d-i.

It's odd that you say this when you have just finished tracking down
#327891, which is a perfect example of the kind of issue that can be
introduced for an architecture in d-i when upgrading its kernel, and
which needs a maintainer to deal with.

> It is trivial if there was no api change, and failry automatable in
> the other case too

No, abi changes are trivial except for coordinating the changes in the
other parts of d-i. The only hard part is tracking new modules that need
to be added and dealing with changes in intermodule dependencies.

> The only reason you had problems with it is because you lacked the
> infrastructure to do it nicely, and the fact that the artificial
> grouping of kernel modules in package may make floppy media outgrow
> their size.


Anyway, given the rest of your mail, this conversation is useless.
Thread-kill here.

see shy jo

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: