Sven Luther wrote: > Nope, but i don't think there is a real problem in making d-i kernel > .udebs working for d-i, if said kernels already worked outside of d-i. It's odd that you say this when you have just finished tracking down #327891, which is a perfect example of the kind of issue that can be introduced for an architecture in d-i when upgrading its kernel, and which needs a maintainer to deal with. > It is trivial if there was no api change, and failry automatable in > the other case too No, abi changes are trivial except for coordinating the changes in the other parts of d-i. The only hard part is tracking new modules that need to be added and dealing with changes in intermodule dependencies. > The only reason you had problems with it is because you lacked the > infrastructure to do it nicely, and the fact that the artificial > grouping of kernel modules in package may make floppy media outgrow > their size. Incorrect. Anyway, given the rest of your mail, this conversation is useless. Thread-kill here. -- see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature