Alvaro wrote:
> Where can I take a look at the new installer being developed, or is it just
> an idea yet?
It's only an idea at this point. It'll be developed on debian-boot.
--
see shy jo
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
Alvaro wrote:
>
> This assumption is false. The new installer is going to be modular, and
> it will be able to start from a very small base (1 floppy, we hope) and
> retrieve other modules as needed from various sources (like cd's,
> floppies, and the network).
>
This assumption is false. The new installer is going to be modular, and
it will be able to start from a very small base (1 floppy, we hope) and
retrieve other modules as needed from various sources (like cd's,
floppies, and the network).
Where can I take a look at
Note that I've bonced it to the correct submit address. D'oh.
--
see shy jo
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Package: ftp.debian.org
Version: 2 Jul 2000, woody
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> It'd be best if you could bug ftp.debian.org about it.
Ok, here goes. For woody, the boot-floppies team has plans to rewrite
the Debian installer from the ground up, converting it to use a modular
architecture in
On Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 02:49:15PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> This assumption is false.
Ok. In that case most of my issues about this are not anymore.
> I hink bug1 summed up everything else pretty well. I myself favor his
> option #2; adding a directory to disks-* and putting the debs in there.
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> In other words, there would be packages in main which can never be
> installed on a system. I don't see how such packages need to be in
> the regular distribution, burned on the CDs, mirrored worldwide etc.
> They are USELESS execpt if you're building the installat
A recent thread on debian-boot concerns wether busybox should be allowed
into woody as a seperate package.
Busybox is a vital component of the installer but would NOT be useable
or installable post install.
The reason for rejection
On Sat Jul 01, 2000 at 11:27:31AM -0400, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho w
On Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 01:02:54PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > Why does it *have* to be a .deb?
>
> Quite possibly because you can't upload source only and all uploads have
> to include a .deb? Atleast last I checked that was the case.
Perhaps I should rephrase: why does it need to be part of
> > The only other alternative is to provide a source .deb instead
> > of a binary package.
>
> Why does it *have* to be a .deb?
Quite possibly because you can't upload source only and all uploads have
to include a .deb? Atleast last I checked that was the case.
--
---===-=-==
On Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 12:55:12PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> No one is against discussing it. It was already discussed with the people
> that matter.
Who are the people that matter?
> If it can't be installed, and it is documented as such in the
> package description, then I see nothing of how
On Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 07:58:39PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 12:40:55PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > I don't think he undertstands that this "package" was previously an
> > integral part of the boot-floppies package and has since been split out
> > for easier
On Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 12:40:55PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> I don't think he undertstands that this "package" was previously an
> integral part of the boot-floppies package and has since been split out
> for easier maintainence.
"Easy maintenance" is not a valid reason to include noninstallabl
On Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 10:24:53AM -0600, Erik Andersen wrote:
> This package is _supposed_ to violate policy. It is to be used exclusivly by
> the debian-installer. There is no way you could ever even install it onto your
> workstation, since it conflicts with dpkg.
Then why is it going into
On Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 10:24:53AM -0600, Erik Andersen wrote:
> On Sat Jul 01, 2000 at 11:27:31AM -0400, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> > This package violates policy in several ways:
> > - first of all, the busybox binary package does not include
> > a copyright file, a changelog file or
On Sat Jul 01, 2000 at 11:27:31AM -0400, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> This package violates policy in several ways:
> - first of all, the busybox binary package does not include
> a copyright file, a changelog file or - indeed - a
> /usr/[share/]doc/ directory!
>
> - second of all
16 matches
Mail list logo
