Why not re-impliment the installer in a more OS neautral way (plugins for
different kernel/userland types) instead of porting it?
That way it will look and feel and act (hopefully) the same as it currently
does, but now the code is future proof?
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
Luca Favatella dijo [Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 11:57:22PM +0100]:
> (I don't know if I have to cc other Debian mailing lists)
Probably debian-boot would be the one - I am adding a Cc: to this
mail, and quoting it fully. Debian-boot is [1] for «Developing the
installation system - Discussion and mainten
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 08:52:03PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> so that maintainers could apply them to architecture-specific bugs when
> necessary. The format, suggested by Steve Langasek, was to use the
> porters mailinglist as the user, and the architecture name as the
> usertag (e.g., 'debia
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 08:52:03PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> After a short discussion on IRC, we came up with another option: a set
> of publically documented usertags, the definition of which would be
> announced on debian-devel-announce and linked to from the BTS homepage,
> so that maintai
On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 11:22:19AM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Mar 2009, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>
> >The format, suggested by Steve Langasek, was to use the
> > porters mailinglist as the user, and the architecture name as the
> > usertag (e.g., 'debian-m...@lists.debian
On Tue, 03 Mar 2009, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>The format, suggested by Steve Langasek, was to use the
> porters mailinglist as the user, and the architecture name as the
> usertag (e.g., 'debian-m...@lists.debian.org' as user, and 'm68k' as
> tag).
Or debian-po...@lists.debian.org as u
6 matches
Mail list logo
