On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 10:09:04PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 15/10/07 at 21:09 +0200, Daniel Baumann wrote: > > Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > Why not stop in that case? > > > > because it would unecessarily block people with custom kernels. > > I'm not sure I understand how: people with custom kernels could just set > LH_LINUX_PACKAGES to "", no? > > Also, I really think that this bug should stay serious as long as > unionfs is the default, since it renders live-helper unusable by > default. I recommended debian-live to a friend of mine, and because of > this bug, his experience with it was obviously very disappointing. Why serious? (I'm not questioning serious vs. grave although I think seroius is typically for policy violations).
If it were a regression I would agree. Do you just want people to know that the code is in a state of high flux? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
