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

Bug#262200: marked as done (debian-installer: d-i downloads unneeded packages)

Your message dated Mon, 13 Sep 2010 19:50:22 +0200
with message-id <20100913175022.GH3452@mykerinos.kheops.frmug.org>
and subject line The right udebs are downloaded....
has caused the Debian Bug report #262200,
regarding debian-installer: d-i downloads unneeded packages
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
262200: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=262200
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: debian-installer
Severity: normal

I'm doing a network install via modem.

I've discovered d-i downloading, amongst others, jfs and lvm udebs.

I won't be using either, so this is simply wasted time.

I suggest that downloading and installing optional udebs be deferred
until it's clear they are wanted.




-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (990, 'testing')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.5-1-686
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Either they're priority: standard and they're used by default....or
priority: optional and they're used only when  specifically requested
by users.

Maybe in some cases, one may wonder if this or that udeb should be
downloaded (or included in an image), or just made optional, but I
don't think we need an extra mechanisme than package priorities.

--

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: