Re: 2.6.14 kernel udebs and d-i
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 09:43:07AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> 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.
There is *NO* porter work involved, only stupid book-keeping stuff needed to
repackage the modules and kernel in .udebs, most of it could easily be
automated or at least the part you want porters to do could easily be
automated. I know i know, nobody feels it is worth to do this automation, as i
have been rebuked for even suggesting this since april or so, but i have also
been clamoring for a common kernel package since then, and see where we are
now.
> 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).
Yeah, and thanks for the d-i team for making it more difficult for the porters
who have to lose time in stupid repackaging work. We already did all the
porting work in providing you a working ans suitable kernel from the common
kernel package.
> 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.
Yeah, and the porters and kernel team have plenty of work to do without
needing to additionally do the easily automatable drudge work of repackaging
the modules in .udebs, especially as the d-i team has repeteadly said in the
paste that they don't want this to be done from the common kernel package, as
ubuntu does with success i would point out. But what else could i expect from
you, anything which is not following your ideas you respond with abuse and
insults.
Sven Luther
Reply to: