On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 05:58:06PM -0500, Michael Stone wrote: > On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 03:20:40PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: > >In practice, I find that once such assumptions creep in, it can be very, > >very hard to remove them without yanking out a lot of entrails to go with. > > Which is the price to be paid for using a different kernel. An > installer, by its nature, is going to be kernel dependent. It also needs > to be small and maintainable. I don't think it's imediately obvious that > coming up with a kernel-independent hardware detector and module loader > (for example) is worth the trouble. If you want to write one, great--but > don't impose that as a requirement on others. I must admit to some confusion, here. Should I take this as implying that there is no particular intent to try to make Debian-Installer play nicely on anything but Linux kernels? Whatever the answer is, fine, but it would be nice to know so that those of us involved with the rest can decide to either not waste our time on something that won't benefit us at all, and build something that will, or so that the folks working on it know that making such assumptions *will* cause problems when they become invalid. -- *************************************************************************** Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com lucifer@lightbearer.com http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/
Attachment:
pgpMLYSrNBzAq.pgp
Description: PGP signature