On Monday 30 June 2008, Otavio Salvador wrote: > It's not up to us, as d-i team, to decide about modules if they > provide or not something useful ... if it gets loaded on installed > system and it does affect the installation (as this does) I think we > ought to include it.
Of course it is up to us. We leave out tons of modules that are available in the regular kernel image packages... IMO having access point support for wireless cards is not something that is needed in the installer. If we can avoid increasing the size of udebs and initrds by not including a module whose primary function is that and there are other, regular drivers that support the same hardware, I don't see any problem. > Otherwise, an option is to ask for kernel team to disable it on kernel > but if it's not going to be done (and I agree in it not being done) we > ought to not conflict with installed system. Why? hostap does not add anything for the functioning of wireless in the installer, and if the udev bug is fixed (and I hope that I've managed to show that there _is_ a udev bug), the interface renaming should just work and the wireless interface will be correctly renamed to eth1 (or ethX) for both D-I and the installed system whatever module(s) are used to drive it. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
