Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> writes: > Hi, > > Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> (2017-03-30): >> Please go ahead. There may be some users that set module options at >> installation time and don't want them set in the installed system. But >> they are likely to be outnumbered by those who do want them set. If >> the installer can boot with those module options then the installed >> system very likely can too. > > Thanks for weighing in. Phil, let's do that; Jolly good. udebs uploaded, git pushed & tagged. > note: we have a couple of days at least before Stretch RC 3 but the > sooner it gets uploaded, the better. Sorry for the delay -- the local Kindergarten had a day off yesterday, so I was feeding bantams and rabbits with my daughter for most of the day :-) >> > At least, are there any plans to keep the list of hardcoded things >> > uptodate? >> >> This is a good point. Is there a list of things to check during each >> release cycle? > > There isn't yet (at least that I know of), but there should be. Absolutely, we should have a checklist (or automated test). Although in this particular case I think that a failure to keep things up to date is pretty fail-safe -- we would just end up with redundant and harmless module options being set for modules that don't exist. Also, new options that are added are quite likely to be things similar to the fsck.* options, which are not really useful for d-i, so it wouldn't surprise me if nobody would ever notice. Should we have a bug to track the lack of a checklist/auto-checker for now, or go immediately to adding stuff to the wiki? Cheers, Phil. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd. |-| http://www.hands.com/ http://ftp.uk.debian.org/ |(| Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34, 21075 Hamburg, GERMANY
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature