On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Otavio Salvador wrote: > Hello Luca, > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Otavio Salvador<ota...@ossystems.com.br> wrote: > > Good work; IMO the best way of doing it is to moving it to > > kernel-wedge to make the work for other arches easier in future and > > avoid duplication. > > The only thing that could be done in kernel-wedge is the ntfs one that > you could fix it now and use it in the package. > > There's no reason to let it to later since it will make your life > easier.
<sarcasm> Yes, I agree it is *really* important to make that change now. Not having that defined in kernel-wedge but instead having it separately for 3 different arches is a really major issue and fixing that will save HUGE amounts of work in the future. Let's see, the files contain exactly ONE module, and have never yet been changed since they were created. So yes: a really major improvement. </sarcasm> IMO this is making a change for absolutely NO measurable gain at all. It is also pushing work towards someone who has other goals than what you are asking him to do, making his work needlessly complicated (as the change would have to be a separate patch) and there is absolutely ZERO benefit to kfreebsd-i386. Also, the proposed kfreebsd-i386 file *is* different from all existing ones (did you even see that?). I don't know why, but that would at least have to be carefully checked. IMO it's not reasonable to dump that on Luca, especially as he has minimal experience with kernel-wedge yet. The kfreebsd-i386 patch is consistent with current code and should IMO be accepted as is and not complicated unnecessarily. Just my 2 cents. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
