[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Etch timeline is unrealistic because non-free firmware is NOT being dealt with

On Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 02:26:20PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > > ramdisk package list has no support for per-flavour module selection, and you
> > > have to end up with stuff like the netboot64 list, which has as sole usage to
> > > add the ibm power hypervisor and virtualization modules, all an ugly mess.
> > 
> > Something to improve. No argument for or against your proposal.
> I thought I'd respond to this, not because it's the first case of Sven
> posting incorrect information to this thread, but because it's one of
> the more egrarious.
> Quoting debian-installer/build/README:
> * 'pkg-lists' has subdirectories for the different image types that list
>   udebs that are put on each image. The pkg-lists/*/common files list
>   udebs common to all architectures, and the files named by architecture
>   (<arch>.cfg) list udebs specific to an architecture. It is also possible
>   to include udebs only on a specific subarchitecture by creating a
>   directory for the architecture and putting config files for the
>   subarchitecture there (<arch>/<subarch>.cfg).
> If you take a look at pkg-lists/netboot, you'll find things like:
> joey@kodama:~/src/d-i/installer/build/pkg-lists/netboot/arm>l
> ads.cfg  netwinder.cfg  nslu2.cfg
> joey@kodama:~/src/d-i/installer/build/pkg-lists/netboot/sparc>l
> combined.cfg  sparc32.cfg  sparc64.cfg
> joey@kodama:~/src/d-i/installer/build/pkg-lists/netboot/mipsel>l
> bcm947xx.cfg  cobalt.cfg  r3k-kn02.cfg  r4k-kn04.cfg  sb1-bcm91250a.cfg
> In fact, powerpc is the only architecture to use unnecessary hacks like
> netboot64, cdrom64, and netboot-apus.

Ah, if i remember well, it was you (or Colin maybe ?), who suggested me the
netboot64 and cdrom64 as the only solution for that problem. I think since
then that the virtualization modules could be added to the normal
netboot/cdrom powerpc flavours, with the ? optional flag. This was not
existent when those flavours first got created though.

I was going to do that, but as you kicked me out of the d-i team ...

> I'd be very happy if someone who cares about powerpc subarches and can read
> and understand documentation like the above could clean this up (if such a
> person exists).

If even yourself are not able to understand it, and thus gives bogus advice, i
guess you will find nobody.

Sven Luther

Reply to: