Re: Supporting multiple udeb sources.... is it really this easy?
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 10:30:18AM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Sven Luther <email@example.com> writes:
> > On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 09:21:24AM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> >> Sven Luther <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> >> > Another idea that has crossed my mind the other day, would be to create
> >> > separate initramfs images, one holding the main installer, the other holding
> >> > the kernel modules (would allow to keep a single copy of the installer, and
> >> > various copies of the per flavour kernel modules), and finally a third one
> >> > holding the non-free .udebs.
> >> How it could be done for CDs?
> > Well, one could do multi-session CDs, but i think that having an additional
> > copy of CD1 including non-free, or even a simple businesscard + non-free or
> > netinst+non-free iso, in addition to the normal ones.
> > This would be really painless.
> Not really. We never distributed officially non-free stuff (except
> now, in kernel) but wouldn't be good to have an official image with
> non-free stuff in.
Well, there is a start to anything, but loads of vendors have distributed
debian+non-free and debian+non-us sets in the paste. I believe debian-cd even
has support for those.
Now, the main problematic point are the images, once that is solved, adding an
extra set of .udebs and .debs is rather painless, not that debian-cd is the
easiest thing to play with, but it is not more than adding alternate images, a
bunch of .udebs and .debs, and regenerate the Packages file if we use the
standard single source .udeb repository.
Nothing outlandish, but definitively etch+1 stuff.