-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 02-04-2005 04:07, Joey Hess wrote:
> I think it would be a shame if sarge release w/o lessdisks in it. For > one thing, debian-edu needs lessdisks and it would be easier over there > if it were in sarge proper. For another, when I'm not using debian-edu > or full lessdisks, I still find initrd-netboot-tools very useful for > ad-hoc setting up of various arches netboot machines. I am very happy to hear that initrd-netboot-tools are getting a life of its own. Have a look at http://wiki.jones.dk/LessDisks if you have input on other areas of lessdisks that you'd like to see split out for more generic use. > Some broken dependencies are keeping the packages out of sarge though: > > kernel-image-netbootable/i386 unsatisfiable Depends: > kernel-image-2.4-generic | kernel-image-2.6-generic | kernel-image-netboot | > not+alpha > > not+alpha (and not+i386) were provided by type-handling, but that was > deprecated and dropped. There are other ways to accomplish it, and the > attached patch does it by making kernel-image-netbootable arch all and > having separate dependency lines for each supported architecture. Wauw. Thanks! I wouldn't have spotted that possible stunt myself. > For unsupported/untested architectures, I choose to make it depend on nothing, > although this could be handled better. How? I am quite interested in improving the situation for untested archs if at all possible. Vagrant (the upstream author of lessdisks) wants untested archs to depend on just any kernel, but I feel that is wrong: Pulling in random kernels makes us get random bugreports, and only from those for which it doesn't work. I believe it should be relatively easy to spot if a kernel is outright missing compared to an initrd not working. > Anyway, I hope the attached patch can be quickly applied and lessdisks can get > into sarge. I took the liberty of setting the urgency to medium in the > changelog; I think that would be an appropriate urgency if lessdisks were > uploaded with only my patch and no other changes, since the current version > has been excessively well tested by its 65 day long wait in unstable. I agree. And I'll even dare to not wait for the current high urgency changes to enter sarge before including this: the "security issues" seems relatively small, and support for all archs in sarge is definately a worthy goal. - Jonas - -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ - Enden er nÃr: http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCTkj/n7DbMsAkQLgRAu1FAJ9Sojp23pCJYZm5dLzgt9sIWzFgUACfQOO1 RtJ+ouXx+xf3GqKHUEY0WD4= =auf2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
