Re: Bug#396365: please add a gdb .udeb, for easier debugging inside d-i
On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 03:03:49AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Thursday 02 November 2006 22:38, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > There's no need to _ask_ you before to open a bug report. We're a
> > comunity and as one we all want the best for the project.
> I did not say that _I_ needed to be asked, I said it needed to be
> discussed on the debian-boot list first, especially when they are general
> purpose architecture all/any udebs as in this case. Adding an
> architecture specific udeb is much less problematic.
I really would like to understand what is the rationale behind this. Adding a
.udeb into the archive, if it is not part of the image, and not loaded by d-i,
can hardly have any influence on d-i.
As far as i understand the only ones who will affect d-i are those in the
image, as well as those who are who are of a certain priority.
What would be the problem in having more .udebs in the archive ? a slight
increase of the Packages file, but i can't see any other harm.
> We now only found out by accident that a request was made at all and that
> is _not_ the way adding new udebs to the archive should happen.
I tagged the bug d-i, i think, which should have been enough to attract your
attention. At least this is how i understood the issue.
Or don't you monitor d-i tagged bugs anymore ?