On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 13:36 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Fri, 2011-04-29 at 09:53 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > > On Fri, 2011-04-29 at 05:03 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 08:38 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > > > > On Sun, 2011-04-24 at 15:59 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > > > The '686-bigmem' flavour will be renamed to '686-pae'; support both names. > > > > > The '686' flavour will be removed, but we can still offer it if available. > > > > > > > > Do you also have patches for d-i's kernel-wedge and the main installer > > > > build? > > > > > > No, I'm not familiar with those. I did the kernel installation > > > selection myself because I've worked on it before. > > > > > > > Also debian-cd will need changes too. Since the latter two are > > > > mainly due to Xen support I can take care of that if you like, although > > > > I think it will depend on the kernel actually being uploaded since I > > > > can't see an easy way to support both names in the main installer build. > > > > > > So it depends on when the d-i team decides to switch to 2.6.39 (or > > > later). But you can get your patches ready before then. > > > > Correct. I'll look into it. > > While I was hacking up an updated kernel-wedge/linux-kernel-di-i386-2.6 > to use 2.6.39 to test this I noticed that nls_base is now built in > instead of modular, despite CONFIG_NLS=m under debian/config. This is > because various =y options (e.g. CONFIG_PCI_LABEL, CONFIG_JOLIET) now > appear to select NLS... JOLIET has selected NLS since the beginning of git history (covering 3 Debian releases so far), though it shouldn't. Given how many things require NLS, though, we may as well explicitly make it built-in. > Probably not a big deal, nls_base.o is ~5k, but thought I'd mention it. > > It just means that the nls-core-modules udeb goes away. OK. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part