Erik Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would prefer using a busybox package. Otherwise, I will again end
> up with the painful task of keeping two CVS trees in sync... The
> busybox package has been ready to upload for months, but thus far
> noone has pursued getting the new "installer" section added to the
> archive.
Getting sections added to the Debian archive sometimes takes years to
happen.
I suggest we find a better way. Why can't you simply provide, hmm,
/usr/lib/busybox/bin/ and a script which could be run to make symlinks
from that into /usr/bin/ at user request? Or we could even just put
/usr/lib/busybox/bin on the path or something.
> Of course, if we go to the bother of making an "installer" archive section, I
> also think it would be very beneficial if we were to break much of the current
> content of the boot floppies tree into separate packages. Right now when
> someone reports a critical bug, the entire boot floppies have to be rebuilt.
> Not an especially robust process.
Yes, I know, but I have no intention of rewriting it in the next 6
weeks. This is not going to happen.
I am proposing maintenance effort is put into boot-floppies, and the
hard-core rework effort is put into debian-installer. It would *not*
be good for Debian to have two forked active teams working on
installation systems.
> There would be a lot less possibility for breakage if dbootstrap
> was a standalone package. I think scripts/rootdisk and the other
> things under scipts should be standalone packages as well. All of
> the PACKAGES_<foo> and PARTIAL_PACKAGES_<bar> files are recreating
> what debian packages do fairly naturally using the debian/rules
> file. I do not think it would be too much to ask the folks that
> maintain packages such as ash, pump, etc to add and additional
> package for the "installer" section...
All well and good, again, but you're talking about woody + 1 I think,
not woody -- not a first quarter 2001 woody anyhow.
> Hmm. This is starting to sound like what you just just said we
> don't have time to do... :-) Still I think this is a doable task
> within the timeframe and would be an incremental step toward a new
> installer (just replace the dbootstrap package).
I don't think so. Joey and I feel that the best approach for a really
maintainable and quality installation system is to completely gut
boot-floppies.
You are saying you don't think that needs to be done, and I must say I
disagree with you. But we just have a difference of opinion here --
fix up or from the ground up.
--
.....Adam Di [EMAIL PROTECTED]<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
