Re: Bug#396365: please add a gdb .udeb, for easier debugging inside d-i
On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 03:34:53PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:
>
> > 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.
> >
> > Frans, ...
> >
> > 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.
>
> Not exactly. When we're building the cdimage we need to "blacklist"
> the useless udebs to make CD images smaller and like. So there're some
> consequencies with d-i, yes.
This is a debian-cd issue though, and not a d-i one. And well, adding more
.udebs to the blacklist seems trivial enough. Especialy for a single .udeb
like in this case, but it is good to know.
> >> 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 ?
>
> I disagreed that we need to "coordenate" the feature requesting with
> the d-i team but I agree that usually it should be done by the mailing
> list.
>
> I personally avoid to open bugs when I can contact the team directly
> and leave the bug reporting resource for people that doesn't know the
> team.
Well, since communincation between me and the d-i team have not been so great
lately, and i really thought that the d-i tags would be enough, i thought this
the best way.
> But I don't see anything wrong about opening a bug for check if
> there's something that might be useful to have in.
I can understand frans's point on this though, he fears that people will
believe i represent the d-i team in this, and add the .udeb on my request.
A bit like Andreas Jochens asking for the ppc64 ports, while his stuff is not
even in debian and he has no relationship or even tried to work together, with
the rest of the powerpc porter team.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: