Re: D-I Etch+1/2 kernel selection (was: Beta1 missing decisions and possible timeline)
On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 01:53:43AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> Finally I created the etch-support udeb which does two things:
> 1) add an early base-installer hook script that sets the 'altmeta'
> 2) add an partman init.d hook script that changes the default
> inode_size from 256 to 128 (only for i386 and amd64) 
Is it known whether or not bootloaders on other archs (the etch
versions, in particular) are affected by this change? I'm wondering if
we shouldn't change the etch default to 128, except for archs with
etch bootloaders that are known to support 256.
> The result of 1) is IMO exactly what we want:
> - the installer will automagically prefer the Etch+1/2 kernel 
> (preseeding of the exact image as mentioned in  is /not/
that's a significant improvement, imo
> - the installer will also install the etch+1/2 kernel meta package, which
> ensures users will automatically get ABI-changing security updates
> - if for some reason the etchnhalf kernels are not available, the installer
> will fall back to the 2.6.18 kernels
> - all this only happens if the Lenny installer is used and thus installs
> using the regular (updated) Etch installer are not changed at all
which is critical..
> There are still things to decide, and IMO consensus on this should be
> reached soon!
> - The naming of the etch+1/2 kernel meta packages is now suddenly essential
> for the installer and should thus be decided on ASAP.
We talked about this on #debian-kernel last week, and
linux-image-2.6-$flavor-etchnhalf had no objections.
> - There has as yet been no discussion about exactly which "Etch + Lenny D-I"
> CD images to create and exactly what should be included on them .
> (Hell, the whole "Etch + Lenny D-I" concept hasn't even really been OKed.)
> Because of mirror space issues _and_ because of required preparations on
> the debian-cd side this _really_ needs to be discussed with Sledge
I'll reply to this on debian-cd only