Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-technologies.net> (07/02/2013): > On 02/07/2013 10:27 AM, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > >That means at least broken mini.iso, which is totally unacceptable. > > broken without the patch i send for debian-installer, yes. If that can't be used with virtualbox (and we already established that, thanks to Michael's testing), that means it's broken with your patch too. > i already commented on 'growing' and why that's wrong. That… > > It's time to realize that we had working things, and that you > > broke athem. Patching reverse dependencies isn't what is going to > > happen here. > > as elaborated, i disagree. to repeat, again, at minimum, it needs and “at minimum” doesn't exactly play along very well. > one (confirming working[0]) patch (to d-i), and steve using the > wheezy local-copy of syslinux on the cdbuilder for debian-cd. not > more, not less. I'm going to repeat it again for you: - that's already too much - that would still mean known regressions (which you'll try to blame on virtualbox, but not going to syslinux 5 means no problem, so just let's just not use that) - and above all: that wouldn't gain us anything at all. KiBi.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature