Re: Kernel BoF, 29th July
On Wednesday 29 July 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Wednesday 29 July 2009, you wrote:
> > > Just for the record, the following is NOT correct:
> > > 10:09 <maks> otavio: only linux-modules-extra
> > > 10:09 <maks> nothing d-i uses and nothing one should really have to
> > > care.
> > >
> > > D-I uses the loop-aes modules (for encrypted partitioning) and that
> > > is exactly why it is so hard to switch D-I to a new kernel version:
> > > D-I can only realistically switch to a new kernel for an arch when
> > > both the kernel itself *and* loop-aes are available.
> >
> > sorry to say so,
> > but it is idiotic that d-i *depends* on external modules.
>
> *shrug*
> D-I has been using loop-aes since Sarge. This is nothing new.
To clarify: D-I does not *depend* on loop-aes (as you put it), but it does
*use* it. And if it is missing we have a regression in offered
functionality, which is especially bad for any D-I release.
Besides that, if l-m-e fails to build and is migrated to testing then any
users having encrypted partitions using loop-aes will be unable to update
their kernel, so treating the absence of l-m-e as a blocker for migration
of the kernel seems quite correct to me.
Debian has been offering support for encrypted partitions using loop-aes
and if that is to be dropped it should be done in a clean way. The kernel
team ignoring build failures in one of the packages it maintains is IMO
not a reason to lower the normal quality criteria of the testing suite.
Reply to: