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

Re: Beta1 missing decisions and possible timeline

On Friday 01 February 2008, dann frazier wrote:
> Is there anything special we need to add to deal with etch 1/2
> kernel metapackages? We were talking about using a name like
> linux-image-2.6-686-etchnhalf.

As I explained in my mails re etch+1/2 some time back [1] , D-I simply will 
not install the correct kernel unless either:
- the user installs at medium/low priority and selects the correct kernel
- the user preseeds the exact kernel version at the boot prompt
  (the addition of an alias as discussed back then to make that easier has
  _not_ yet been implemented) [2]
- something is changed in base-installer to make it select the updated
  kernel automatically

Having metapackages with whatever name changes nothing in those facts.

I have been quite disappointed that there was no real follow-up to my mails, 
which now leaves us in the situation that there is basically no support yet 
to select the correct kernel for etch+1/2.

If the metapackages will be limited to Etch (i.e. only purpose is to allow 
easy updates in case of ABI-changing security updates), I have no real 
objection to naming them etchnhalf, although I think it is a disastrous 
option for people who may have to type it at the command line.


[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2007/12/msg00234.html + thread
[2] Note that adding the preseeding on the CD is _not_ going to work as
that does not allow selecting a correct kernel flavor.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: