Hi, On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 09:33:15PM +0200, Michael Gilbert wrote: > Building the udeb package itself is effectively trivial, so the > possibility for non-trivial consequences seems somewhat unlikely.
libpcap is special because it's very close to the kernel; once it gets used in the d-i environment the burden of keeping it working there will fall on me. In the past I've had very little help from the porters with kfreebsd issues (like #750836, #626232) and I don't have the patience to deal with non-working or dog-slow porterboxes to fix issues in a non-release port I'm personally not interested in. So yes, in itself adding the udeb is trivial. But I'm not sure I want a udeb in the first place. Let me also state that NMUing a package without warning for a wishlist bug, even to DELAYED, is considered rude in my book. > Is your concern about debian-boot's ability to block-udeb when > preparing d-i updates, which could affect libpcap transitions? Yes, there's also that. -- Romain Francoise <rfranco...@debian.org> http://people.debian.org/~rfrancoise/
