Hi, Turbo proposed a few patches to add ZFSonLinux support to d-i. Using '?' to mark some components as optional happens in several other places, but I'm worried about using that for kernel modules[1].
1. http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=d-i/debian-installer.git;a=commitdiff;h=d8ef3f7047a005aced83ce77d88fb9952b3fea7e Having out of tree modules means an extra sync is needed to get all pieces together when the kernel bumps its version, when it comes to migration to testing, and when it comes to releasing d-i. Not to mention the usual “oops, OOT modules broke with that new kernel”. It's also very unlikely that I'm going to be the one fixing those. -boot@: am I painting a darker picture than what's ahead of us, or does that look accurate enough? I'm also not sure how kernel maintainers see (new) OOT modules in the archive (AFAIUI the general feeling is: there should be no OOT modules, period; but I might be misremembering things, I don't follow kernel things closely enough). -kernel@: your opinion on those? Mraw, KiBi. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130522130521.gb1...@mraw.org
