Santiago Garcia Mantinan wrote: > > Proably because there are no udebs at all, let alone kernel udebs, on > > the second CD. So I'm reassigning this to debian-cd; if the second full > > CD is intended to be bootable, it needs to have the d-i udebs on it. > > :-??? Does this seem reasonable? I mean, isn't it more reasonable to inform > the user of this problem and ask him to change the cd and introduce the one > with the udebs on it rather than having the udebs on each bootable cd? We could do that.. they will need to use the first CD for base installation anyway. What's the point of booting from the second CD? Will it use syslinux instead of isolinux for old systems that cannot handle isolinux? The only other reason I can think of to have a second bootable CD is to make one without a logo, or with serial console support. -- see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature