For the debian-boot list: see [1] for the start of this thread. On Thursday 23 October 2008, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > And if brltty only needs a fraction of its functionality, then I > > think it should be reconsidered whether libicu really isn't the right > > solution for it. > > ICU is definitely the way recommanded by unicode.org. OK. In that case I think the only realistic thing to do here is to drop brltty from the netinst image. It will of course be kept on full CDs. I think that is acceptable given the following considerations: - the brltty deb is installed in finish-install - the netinst is intended to always be used with a mirror - if a mirror is available, brltty will continue too be installed without any problems - IMO doing a netinst installation without using a mirror makes no sense for visually handicapped users as it only really makes sense for testing and for deliberate absolute minimal installs Given the above I think that keeping a 5MB dependency for something that's needed only in exceptional cases by a very small group of users is not worth it. I would suggest adding a dialog in the brltty-udeb finish-install script to warn users if the deb was not installed correctly, but given the above I don't think having that dialog is a requirement before we could drop the package from netinst images. Unless there are strong arguments against this proposed change, I will commit it in a few days. Cheers, FJP [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-cd/2008/10/msg00013.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.