vanilla as default or not
[Note: I got unsubscribed from debian-boot from last wednesday until this
Sunday]
David Kimdon <dwhedon@debian.org> writes:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2002/debian-boot-200204/msg00243.html
>
> I noticed that vanilla has abour 500 drivers as modules while idepci
> has something like 130. A default idepci kernel wouldn't give people
> many drivers, probably not a good idea (for example no sound card
> support). The best solution IMO is to add frame-buffer to vanilla. I
> cc'ed Herbert and as far as I can tell we won't be getting
> frame-buffer on vanilla.
No, I don't expect we'll want to change anything about the kernels at
this point.
I don't really see the problem with idepci being what you get when you
boot from CD#1. Folks with SCSI won't be able to see their hard disks
-- they should be booting from the compact image.
Phil's argument that we consider the "vanilla" image default and so
should debian-cd is foolish IMHO. Phil, you have to realize it's very
difficult for us to change the name of flavors once they are set -- it
requires kernel-image, pcmcia-module, and other package name changes
as well as hacks throughout the ultra-legacy and annoying
boot-floppies sources.
If I had my druthers, 'idepci' would be vanilla, 'compact' would be
'scsi', 'vanilla' would be 'loaded' -- bf2.4 is ok and pretty
explanatory.
What we're trying to avoid is the countless users who cannot boot with
'vanilla' (loaded) due to i386 IO/IRQ content and boot hang issues.
It's better for the user to be able to boot up but not see a device
(e.g., a SCSI user using the idepci flavor) than for the boot to hang
loading the kernel.
We can do whatever, including keeping it as is, but it will just suck
continuing to answer all the FAQs and close all the bugs caused by
users booting with the vanilla set.
--
...Adam Di Carlo..<adam@onshore-devel.com>...<URL:http://www.onshored.com/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-cd-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: