On Tuesday 03 January 2006 23:52, Sven Luther wrote: > The current proposal is about simply using the same .udeb organisation > and move it inside the linux-2.6 common package, which is something > that works out just fine for ubuntu even, but which the current > linux-2.6 common package infrastructure could also handle. So, when can we expect a coherent, full proposal (with overview of benefits, possible pitfalls, things that need to be worked out further, and so on) on this in a dedicated mail on a new thread to the relevant mailing lists, so we can actually comment on it instead of only seeing a rough outline mentioned every so often as part of a flame? (Without the "current method sucks" comments please; saying "I think the current situation could be improved by..." is much more likely to get positive reactions.) > The only > reason i saw against this was a mail from joeyh mentioning ease of > moving modules around inside .udebs, and that this would be easier > under the d-i umbrella than if it is inside the kernel, and naturally > the old sarge-time brokeness in the archive infrastructure, which is > presumably fixed by now, or should be fixed for etch. You forget the argument that when kernel udebs are maintained within d-i, we will be much more likely to spot changes in them as a possible cause of breakage when installation-reports come in.
Description: PGP signature