(Dropping CCs to d-release/kernel/cd.) On Monday 04 February 2008, Otavio Salvador wrote: > Those patches looks OK for commiting right now from my point of view. I want at least confirmation that this will actually be the way we're going to do Etch+1/2. I've also just sent a mail to Ted Tso with some questions regarding the inode_size issue. > > I then added a hack in base-installer which does the following. > > If the (new) debconf template "base-installer/kernel/altmeta" has a > > value (e.g. 'etchnhalf'), it will add new potential kernel defaults > > before the the "normal" kernel defaults, with that value postfixed. > > I think that prefmeta (preferred metapackage) is more logical for the > template name from my point of view. Not sure if I agree that prefmeta would be better than altmeta, but I have no strong feeling about it. I'll wait for other opinions. > I'd like to get a comment from > Christian since he always gives good suggestions on this cases :-) Does not really matter as this is a purely internal template, so an l10n review is not needed. More important is that these changes may very well impact your release planning, depending on how quickly we get the needed responses. Note that we could delay the patches for a next Beta (based on 2.6.24), but that would be a pity if they decide to go for 2.6.22 instead. In that case, if the patches go in before the first Beta, we would not need to do an extra release.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.