Daniel Baumann <daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net> (07/02/2013): > On 02/07/2013 08:12 AM, Michael Biebl wrote: > >This list is getting longer with each email. Seeing that syslinux 5 has > >been in sid for less then 10 days, I'm worried what other issues might > >show up. > > apart from the two obvious things (debian-installer and debian-cd) > that do need to be updated to copy in the additionally required c32 > modules when using vesamenu.c32, there's only vbox broken.
So obvious that you didn't submit any patches against the reverse build-dependencies you broke unilaterally, without any prior notice? I always thought of Debian as something which included “team work” and people interacting with each others to build a nice operating system. Apparently I was wrong all along. > while i can see that one is inclined to jump to the conclusion that > now each and every package in debian needs an update, it really > isn't so. > > no package is directly interacting with a bootloader, except those > that create images (debian-installer, debian-cd), or boot images > *and* have bugs fixed-upstream-long-time-ago-but-not-in-debian > (vbox). That's nowhere like anything which could qualify with something starting with “no package except […]”. > again, note that any other virtualization software, be it in wheezy > directly (qemu, kvm) or otherwise (parallels, vmware) which i've > tested with, has no bugs with syslinux 5. it's an isolated thing > that vbox still has that bug in debian. That's called a showstopper. Last I checked, we have nothing to gain with syslinux 5 apart losing accumulated testing, having to include patches you can't even come up with a full list of, hitting known-and-unfixed regressions, and having to bother tech-ctte instead of just releasing a new d-i. Thank you so much. Not. KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
