On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 09:26:23PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Le Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 01:37:04PM -0600, Adam DiCarlo écrivait:
> > Oh my. I didn't even realize that debian-installer wasn't a package.
> >
> > Maybe I should burst out the debian-installer/* commits to their
> > actual source packages instead. That sounds like a better plan. The
> > only problem there is that if people want all the CVS commit msgs for
> > debian-installer, they have a few PTS subscriptions to do...
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> That's too complicated just to get the CVS commits. In fact, I don't
> have a problem with the CVS commits in the list itself. We can always
> filter them with procmail ... :)
>
> The fake package in the PTS is ok for me, as long as it's well
> documented. A debian-boot-cvs list would be ok for me too.
Completely agreed. I'm quite interested in following the devel of d-i, but
if I'm requiered to subscribe to N PTS module, I surely won't do that. And
what when a new module is added (like the lilo version for alpha) ? Will we
have to register to yet another module ?
If you're sick with cvs commits on this list, please go for a
debian-boot-cvs list, just like it's done for the www.
My 2 cents, Mt.
--
We're still waiting for the Vatican to officially canonize this kernel, but
trust me, that's only a matter of time. It's a little known fact, but the
Pope likes penguins too.
--- Linus Torvalds
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
