I've not checked the details of the current proposed patch, as I think the correct overall design should be agreed on first.
On Fri, 2012-05-11 at 17:38:41 +0100, Wookey wrote: > > Jonathan Nieder <jrnie...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Wookey wrote: > > Attached is a slightly better version which is at least useful enough to > > work with. > > Thanks. What did you think of Raphaël's idea of the virtual > bootstrap-stage package? I don't like much the numbered stage fields, but I think abusing virtual packages to do this is a bad idea, to the extent that I'd rather use the numbered staged fields if there was no other option. > Interesting. We did look at various ways of representing this info in > the normal fields, but it was difficult to think of something that > was both sufficient and not too intrusive. I think I might have mentioned this before but I pondered about this in more general terms some time ago in: <http://www.hadrons.org/~guillem/debian/docs/embedded.proposal> From those, adding something like profiles support is IMO the nicer and more generic solution, although it implies some infrastructure changes. Of course other possible alternatives other people might come up with might be even nicer, but my point is that we should strive to design something that's good, ideally future-proof, somewhat generic, etc, even if might imply more work, instead of trying to shove some stuff into the system just because it implies minimal overall infrastructure changes. thanks, guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
