Re: RFS: SDLJump
On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 14:48 +0200, Eddy Petrişor wrote:
> udeb definition, and there is no need for D-I to have such a huge
> sledge hammer in order to break the tiny (vaporware) issue of game
> loading
Indulge me another moment, and then I'll shut up. Aren't we just
talking about one package header vs. another? I just don't see the
point in a new "X-" header just to flag this one aspect of game packages
that could just as easily be implemented as a tag. Or if it is a
"sledgehammer" as you say, I still wonder even if the "X-" header is the
most efficient implementation from D-I's perspective, if those headers
should be defined in terms of some debtags classification. I think
that's more consistent from the user's perspective. (I'm assuming a user
might care about locating the subset of packages flagged as D-I game
material outside of the context of doing an actual install. But maybe
I'm totally off-base.)
Ben
Reply to: