Hi, and first of all: thanks for proposing patches to improve the installer. Turbo Fredriksson <turbo@bayour.com> (21/05/2013): > Most of my commits should be reasonably straigt forward, but there's > a few that might need a little more review. Especially since > kFreeBSD already contain support for ZVOL's, I don't want to risk > messing with that (it shouldn't, but shit happens :). I guess some commits would have been nice to review before pushing to master indeed. A few examples: - base-installer's changelog has conflict markers and a deleted entry in master now. - debian-installer master is used to get autobuilt images, so adding packages which aren't available in the archive to pkglists breaks those builds. > But since the ZoL (zfs and spl) isn't yet available in the archive > (something about new packages not being accepted this year - !?), > and the fact that some of the commits might not be very pretty, and > some needs more talk, I was kind'a hoping someone would actually > take a look at the commits I done and perhaps comment more on them. Until those packages are available in the archive (should that happen, due to licensing concerns that might involved here, but I'm neither a lawyer or an ftpmaster), I think it would be safer to keep all relevant changes into a zol (or any other appropriate name) branch, and reset the master branches to where they were before you started pushing things. Any objections or better ways to restore d-i autobuilds while keeping Turbo's work around in our repositories? (Reverting the last commit in debian-installer is a trivial thing to do, of course, but other packages had larger changes.) Mraw, KiBi.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature