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

Re: Bug#1060134: kmod-udeb vs busybox-udeb: agree on who ships depmod



Hi,

Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT> (2024-04-09):
> Yes. Nowadays kmod has many more features related to compressed modules 
> and verification of signatures.
> Can we agree that kmod should provide these programs for d-i?
> Or can the d-i maintainers just tell us what they want?

I meant to come back to this after experimenting, then things happened…

I picked kmod at the time because it worked, and because busybox didn't
work, which I summed up in:
  https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/debian-installer/-/commit/450daf0bd24ee94d4f466ab65908c079ef795145

(plus follow-up commit, woopsie
  https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/debian-installer/-/commit/69777be465c5d0210d16159a456ab88535513a07
)

I'm fine with sticking to kmod regarding module support in d-i. I'm not
sure we should keep support in two different modules, so dropping it
from busybox would work for me. Others might have different views on
this, though.


Cheers,
-- 
Cyril Brulebois (kibi@debian.org)            <https://debamax.com/>
D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: