On Friday 13 July 2007 01:48, Frans Pop wrote: > I was quite surprised to see the two new udebs from your source package > gnu-fdisk appear. Mainly because there has not been any discussion by > Robert about adding them with the rest of the D-I team and the D-I > release managers in particular. Let me make this clear once and for all: there should be NO requests filed for adding new udebs to existing Debian packages without discussing it first on the debian-boot mailing list (which also means that only asking on IRC is not enough). This also goes for udebs that are not intended to be used in Debian Installer itself, but are e.g. for debian-edu or live CD or similar. The only exception is if a D-I porter needs an *architecture specific* udeb, but even then at least announcing it on the list is very much appreciated. The main reasons for this are: - the size of installation images should not be increased without discussion - every new udeb may need to be excluded in debian-cd - migration for all udebs needs to be consciously managed (which mostly falls to the D-I release manager) - because of the previous point, having a udeb is not always enjoyable for maintainers of regular packages because their packages may get blocked from transitioning to testing; we should therefore not have unused or trivial udebs Remember, and this was recently affirmed by the Technical Committee, that the debian-installer section of the repository is "owned" by the D-I team. Adding new udebs is a fairly major change. It seems only reasonable that people inform/consult their colleagues in the team before requesting them. We are of course work willing to work with anybody who wants to extend the installer (and history shows that we do), but only if it is done in the proper spirit of collaboration, and springing new udebs on the team is _not_ a good example of proper collaboration. Cheers, FJP
Attachment:
pgpW01gdmYbAs.pgp
Description: PGP signature