[not subscribed, please cc on replies] On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 07:19:43 +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> I'm not sure that belongs to upstream, again. We should refocus on our > point, here: D-I. I'm not interested in changing things upstream, or > even changing the way you deal with them in the standard console-setup > package. You're certainly handling things the right way. > I think this is the absolute wrong way to go, fwiw. Making things significantly different in the installer means more maintenance overhead, instead of improving things for everyone and sharing the maintenance burden, if this was happening upstream. The way to present this information in c-s can be improved, some xk-c strings might need to be changed to make them easier to understand, some variants might need to be hidden because they're mostly unused, etc, and sure, that's a lot of work, but there's no reason this should be specific to d-i IMO. Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
