On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 03:03:49AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote: > On Thursday 02 November 2006 22:38, Otavio Salvador wrote: > > There's no need to _ask_ you before to open a bug report. We're a > > comunity and as one we all want the best for the project. > > I did not say that _I_ needed to be asked, I said it needed to be > discussed on the debian-boot list first, especially when they are general > purpose architecture all/any udebs as in this case. Adding an > architecture specific udeb is much less problematic.
Frans, ... I really would like to understand what is the rationale behind this. Adding a .udeb into the archive, if it is not part of the image, and not loaded by d-i, can hardly have any influence on d-i. As far as i understand the only ones who will affect d-i are those in the image, as well as those who are who are of a certain priority. What would be the problem in having more .udebs in the archive ? a slight increase of the Packages file, but i can't see any other harm. > We now only found out by accident that a request was made at all and that > is _not_ the way adding new udebs to the archive should happen. I tagged the bug d-i, i think, which should have been enough to attract your attention. At least this is how i understood the issue. Or don't you monitor d-i tagged bugs anymore ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
