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

Re: Screen support (was: Next d-i alpha release: late June)

Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> (2016-07-04):
> Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> (2016-07-04):
> > Roger Shimizu <rogershimizu@gmail.com> (2016-07-04):
> > > For the change I mentioned yesterday, I already tested on:
> > >  - armel/kirkwood
> > >  - amd64
> > > and they're working as expected.
> > > 
> > > So I just pushed the commit to add screen support.
> > > 
> > > I hope all ARCHs still (daily) build fine when I get up tomorrow morning.
> > > If not I'll try to fix or simply remove the screen support for that
> > > specific ARCH.
> > > 
> > > This has big impact to UI (added a top bar) and operation (Ctrl-A
> > > [1-4], previous Alt-F[1-4] is still working though).
> > > I hope it won't panic anyone.
> > 
> > I'm surprised to discover that screen support is not opt-in…

So I've just checked: what started as "screen support would be nice to have
in some particular situation, on an opt-in basis" became "let's use screen
unconditionally", adding an extra line which means nothing for beginners,
possibly making dialogs overflow vertically.

I really don't think that's a reasonable default.

Oh and also: this totally breaks the graphical installer!

> In addition to that, please don't forget to include a debian/changelog
> update with your commits…

The commit message in debian-installer's git repository reads:
| Add screen support in pkg-lists
| screen-udeb seems to be useful for most cases, except extremely size
| limited platform, such as armel/orion5x in netboot/network-console.

which doesn't quite describe what's happening here, which is: screen being
used by default! I really expect commit messages (and their corresponding
changelog entries) to describe what they're doing!

Summary: While I'm very happy to see new features proposed, it is really
important that changes leading to such user-visible changes are
carefully checked, and documented. Of course, no-one can anticipate all
consequences, but introducing screen at the very beginning of the boot
sequence could have triggered a thought about the non terminal-based
installer… the graphical installer is even the default now!


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: