[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#396365: please add a gdb .udeb, for easier debugging inside d-i

On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 12:39:50AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Friday 03 November 2006 23:51, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Bah, i can commit to debian-cd, and now that i know about this fact, if
> > ever a .udeb i asked is out there, i will naturally add it to the
> > blacklist.
> No, sorry that was not the intention. Having everybody committing 
> uncoordinated changes to debian-cd is also not the answer.


If a .udeb is added to the archive, and immediately blacklisted, which makes
sense for a debug-only udeb like strace or gdb, then the net effect on the
debian-cd images is null, and nothing, absolutely nothing will be impacted by
it, except the slight increase in the packages file. So ...

> Why do you think there is someone like a release manager for d-i? It is 
> because interactions are complex and changes often need coordinating and 
> correct timing.

... there is not really any need for coordination and stuff like that.
Coordination is needed if you guys decide to add the .udeb in question to the
image or CDs.

> I'm perfectly happy to make the changes. I just need to know that there 
> are things that need changes. And the way I know that is by people 
> discussing and announcing things on the list.

As said, i thought that the d-i tag would do this. Maybe we could ask the
bug-masters (or whatever they are named) to have some script automatically
sending d-i tagged bugs to debian-boot ? 

> > Also, there may be another future for .udebs out there than just for
> > d-i use, altough i know the d-i folk doesn't like this :)
> For now, and until it is decided differently by the d-i team and 
> ftp-masters, the debian-installer section is for exclusive use by 
> debian-installer and the d-i team has complete control and veto power 
> over what goes in there.

Yeah, the issue is that you are not particularly receptive to discussion about
it, but then this may just have been the old dispute. On the other hand,
trying to discuss things like this is what got me in this mess in the first
place. Let's have this discussion at a later time, after the etch release

> I've seen the smiley, but I don't think that is appropriate. Please don't 
> joke about such matters, just accept the facts and act in accordance with 
> them.

You know, you are not fun at all, you should losen up a bit, and accept that
if you have such rigid stances on stuff, then you deserve to be gently poked
about it. 

> If there is a serious other use for udebs, we need to discuss that and 
> discuss how to implement it in the archive first. I've seen some 
> suggestions, but so far no serious plans.

Let's have this discussion post-etch, ok ?

> Basic message: we do _not_ want rogue udebs out there. My earlier request 
> stands: do not request new udebs without discussing them on the list 
> first; not for d-i and not for any other usage.

Please be a bit more open though. This kind of stuff, diabolizing new
proposals like you are doing, is absolutely not helpful.

> I think we've discussed this three or four times now. Why is it so 
> difficult to simply accept such facts?

Because it is no reasoned fact, but simply you trying to get people to think
like you based on your authority ? Face it, you cannot stiffle people
thinking, or discussing issues, or trying to push for what they think best. If
nothing else, this is called free speach, and if you really don't get that,
maybe you are in the wrong line of business.

Please don't take offense of this, i will not go further into this, but i
think this one is a major issue which led us into the mess we are in, so it is
right it goes up in the open. I know i had my part in this too, because i
didn't know how to best discuss this, and was insistent while other ways may
have server better, but be aware that responses such as those are those who
make me have fits.

Remember, Free Software, Free as in Free speach.


Sven Luther

Reply to: