On Friday 25 November 2005 09:11, Sven Luther wrote: > And Frans, no, insulting porters and complaining they don't do their > job is no way to get this solved, and i find joeyh remark that only 6 > d-i architectures support 2.6 kernels, while thanks to the common > architecture, all debian official architectures now have 2.6 kernels > since a couple of months quite illustrative of the problem faced by d-i > here. No, I would say it is very much illustrative of the lack of porter interest and involvement in d-i. Note that having a working installer is a release requirement. If porters don't get their acts together and start work on getting and/or maintaining 2.6 support in d-i, we (the d-i release managers) may well be forced to exclude the arch from future releases and inform the Debian release managers that the arch no longer has a working installer. This would possibly result in disqualification for Etch (unless of course the arch can persuade the release managers that there is a valid alternative to install Debian). The d-i team has plenty of work to keep the general functionality in d-i in good shape. Asking them to also shoulder the minimal involvement we ask of porters is a totally unacceptable viewpoint.
Attachment:
pgpIwsoMoqWZy.pgp
Description: PGP signature