Re: Debian Installer - boot floppies
On Sun, Mar 05, 2006 at 04:25:01PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Mar 05, Sven Luther <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > 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.
> This is just not true, the udev package contains multiple workarounds
> for broken drivers, starting from ide.agent and vio.agent.
> I would not mind receiving help with udev either, but with a few
> notable exceptions most people just talk without writing code, and
> often do not even know what they are talking about.
Well, i remember some issues with the firewire module in the sarge timeframe,
and how you actively discouraged a workaround for this.
> > All that is asked is that you don't oppose such workaround to be implemented.
> I have no such plan. Just do not expect to implement hacks in my own
> packages unless there is a timeline for their replacement with proper
So, on one hand you say you have no plan to oppose workarounds, but on the
other hand you clearly oppose such workarounds ?
I propose you give some clear guidelines of what will be acceptable and not,
and that it be discussed together with all involved people (the kernel team,
the release managers and the d-i team at least), before you put any such
far-reaching constraints on any possible workarounds, and thus actively
discourage people to write code.
Also, i would be interested in how your vio and ide hacks described above fit
in these guidelines.