Sven Luther wrote: > For the installer, sure, but the generation of the d-i kernel .udebs is only > marginally of their relevance, and furthermore they don't want the > responsability associated with it, and as proof i can show you that joeyh > upgraded kernel-wedge and the x86 d-i module udebs, but didn't touch all the > other architectures, defaulting it upto the porters, which are the exact same > guys doing the kernel packages. So joeyh and fjp can't have it both way. Um, I maintain kernel-wedge and linux-kernel-di-i386*. Not having access to every other architecture out there, and with some of the architectures that I do have access to suffering from unaddressed kernel bugs (ie #332962) that make my hardware for them useless for testing new d-i releases, as well as being limited to modem speeds, makes it difficult to maintain anything more. If you take a closer look at the commits in question, my changes were limited to kernel-wedge, which means the maintainers for other arches benefit from them. Probably the packages for other architectures can be updated with just a rebuild and simple testing, although it can be very hard to tell, since what hardware is common on which architectures, and thus which udebs it should go into, is not always easy to determine if you're not intamately familiar with the architecture. Which is a good reason to have maintainers who are, instead of me. Saying that this means I lack responsibility and am only interested in taking the easy way out is, again, insulting. <plonk> -- see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature