On 15/10/07 at 16:58 -0400, Justin Pryzby wrote: > 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.
It is a regression in the sense that running lh_build used to build a working image, and running it now on my unionfs config generates a broken image. > Do you just want people to know that the code is in a state of high flux? I understand that debianlive is under heavy development. But in that specific case, I really don't see why it doesn't fail in a clean way, instead of generating a broken image. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
