[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: bits from the release team



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.

Attachment: pgp_toOxUC8cw.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: