Re: 2.6.12 is in testing
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 12:56:38PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> 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.
Which was a missing .udeb indeed, and quite bothersome. Not sure if it was
introduced by a change in the hfsplus module, or by a change in d-i. That
said, this is orthogonal to the issues discussed here. Also notice that if we
had one-module-per-udeb and automated dependency handling, this would not have
happened at all, so the argument cuts both way.
> > 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.
Notice though that the kernel team already deals with new module introduction
when we are faced with new .config entries enabling them or not, and it would
not be major work to extend that decision to build it or not, to also think
about including them for d-i or not.
> > 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.
Ok, then i missed the other argument you where giving me in hel, but i think
to remember it was either that or the problem we mentioned above.
> Anyway, given the rest of your mail, this conversation is useless.
> Thread-kill here.
Bah, this is ridiculous, then you complain that people don't participate
enough, and you scare them away by refusing to discuss stuff ?