Re: D-I Team: What happens if udebs are added the pool outside d-i?
On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 09:38:11AM +0100, Geert Stappers wrote:
> Op 28-01-2008 om 00:41 schreef Daniel Dickinson:
> > I've got a project I've been working on in fits and starts that I'd
> > like to use d-i for. I'm working on a utility system that allows
> > restore/rescue/repair/modification of a linux system (the restore is to
> > be a local or networked restore of systems backed up using amanda) and
> > the backup/imaging of linux/windows/mac systems. I've decided I want
> > to switch to doing this using d-i (by submitting patches to package
> > maintainers that will create udebs), but I want to make sure that,
> > assuming the maintainers are willing to add the patches, that the new
> > udebs won't cause problems for d-i proper.
> > I'm hoping that the udebs don't mean anything to d-i unless the d-i
> > build scripts pull them in as specifically directed and therefore don't
> > impact on d-i unless you want them to.
> What I understand from the current way of handling udebs,
> is that all udebs have the same priority.
This is not true. There are most certainly different categories of
udebs, and a number of things including some control fields alter the
effect of a udeb on the installer.
> The protect d-i from unwanted changes due upload of packages
> containing an udeb, are _all_ packages with an udeb blocked by the
> ftp-masters. After an 'Okay' from the d-i team are those packages
> allowed to go into the archive.
This is in order to avoid mistakes, not because udebs all have the same
Colin Watson [email@example.com]