Re: Debian Installer - boot floppies
- To: Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Debian Installer - boot floppies
- From: Sven Luther <email@example.com>
- Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 16:12:46 +0100
- Message-id: <20060305151246.GA2701@localhost.localdomain>
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <44007A0F.email@example.com> <20060226135510.GA26166@localhost.localdomain> <20060226160034.GA16992@pants.nu> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20060303223035.GB25184@pants.nu> <20060304070854.GA31566@localhost.localdomain> <email@example.com> <20060305083902.GA27994@localhost.localdomain> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Sun, Mar 05, 2006 at 11:19:04AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> email@example.com wrote:
> >I think that this is not a position acceptable in debian right now, who aims
> >to support many less-supported-arches/subarches, who still struggle to get
> >their main patches into mainline. So i believe it is sane to accept that for
> I think it's not acceptable for Debian to try to support drivers or
> architectures which are unmaintained upstream unless somebody is ready
> to do the work here.
> By saying that these obsolete drivers should be supported anyway you are
> basically requesting other people to spend their time maintaining
> workarounds in their own packages.
Well, we have done this for sarge in a much more extensive way when all we had
was discovery to work with. Udev beeing a very important piece of software
which is the cause of many troubles recently, and given that you are unwilling
to support such backward compatible fixes, i suppose this probably means that
you would be willing to accept a (or various) comaintainers who would be
willing to maintain those workarounds.
All that is asked is that you don't oppose such workaround to be implemented.