Quoting Frans Pop (firstname.lastname@example.org): > > I guess this is because the "apt-install console-setup" is in > > kbd-chooser's post-base-installer, at a moment where APT sources are > > not available (or configured). > > No, it was simply because the package was not on the CD at all! And that > would have been a *very* obvious thing to check, don't you think? Maybe, yes. If it was so obvious, why didn't you do it, then? I understand *you* have a much better knowledge of D-I than most other people working on it right now. I understand (or rather I hear) you laughing silently in your corner when one of us is fighting stupidly with a bug the way I did with that one. I understand you think you would do a much better job than us right now and that, in some way, we suck at maintaining D-I. I told you many times since you left the position of D-I release manager how valuable and respected is the work you continue to do and I think that all other people involved in D-I share that feeling. But probably all other also feel like the (often non intended) sarcasm you put in your remarks doesn't help that much. And we all have much trouble interacting with you in that mood, which should be very obvious since several months. In this very specific example, I don't really see the value added by the somewhat sarcastic remark *even* if I could have deserved it. We really need to find a better way to interact....and I think we are able to find it without drastic decisions (here, I try to anticipate a reaction of yours to drop your entire work on D-I, because this is definitely not something I want). > The rule is: if a package gets apt-installed, it *must* be included on > every bootable CD that includes the base system (i.e, all except the > businesscard). .../... Point taken, though apt-install could very well install something *if* a mirror is available. But, yes, I understand this might hide problems like this one and we'd better avoid making this possible.
Description: Digital signature