Hi Petter, On Dienstag, 7. April 2009, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > Nope, it is not safe to assume. The DVD installs need to work without > Internet access. They would work. They would just miss on feature. Which can still be enabled once network access is there. So it's not *that* big of a deal. > >> I tried last summer to convince the Debian Installer developer team > >> to make debs of the d-i images, but no-one found time to work on > >> it, and it is thus missing for Lenny. > > URL? Bug report? > A quick google search did not lead me anywhere, and I do not have more > time to track it down. Please do or file a new bug. If we are serious about becoming Debian, we need to work on it. > A package with similar needs (and I discussed this need with its > author) is documented on > <URL:http://wiki.debian.org/DebianInstaller/NetbootAssistant>. > Perhaps the author remember any URLs. Maybe you can contact him? Please note that there is also a d-i team meeting scheduled for April 11th at 20:00 UTC - maybe you can propose the problem and a solution for squeeze there? > > I've looked at the package now and I have to reject it. The binary > > package contains software without sources in the source package and > > it also lacks copyright information about the binaries in there. > > Thats really not acceptable if we want to call ourselves "_Debian_ > > Edu". > Oh, come on. With this argument, the d-i boot images on the CDs and > DVDs needs to be removed too. We do not have the source for theses > either. I assume we include a written offer to deliver the sources if asked for. If not, it's a serious bug, but no reason to make the same mistake twice. Also, I'd be _much happier_ to include the tarballs as tarballs on the DVD. Tarballs are tarballs, while with .deb's d-i-bootimages breaks one central assumption of .debs: that you can rebuild them from source packages alone. That's not true for d-i bootimages. > "I do not > believe this problem is important and do not like the proposed > solutions" is not really a useful approach to solving the problems we > need to fix, and I hope we can avoid ending up there. "I believe this problem is really really important and needs to be fixed and I don't care if the solution breaks basic assumptions like that a .deb can be rebuild from .dsc and orig.tar.gz alone" is not useful neither. > The archive policy is there to make sure we have the long term goal of > getting all we want in Debian in sight all the time, not to make it > impossible to find short term solutions to real problems that need to > be solved before the release. If policy is just a handwaver which we can break whenever we "need" to solve shortterm problems, it's worthless. Not filing a bug in the Debian BTS shows me there is no initiative (or not enough) to fix this properly, which is what greatly contributes to my reservation about this approach. Plus, a .deb aint a tarball, .debs come with sources. We are Debian. regards, Holger
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.