Anthony Towns wrote: > given the trivial amount of code shared between >debian-installer and boot-floppies, bugs found in one aren't relevant >to the other in most cases.
Actually two of the three bugs that I'd reported against the "install" package turned out to be relevant to debian-installer, much as I'd suspected. The bugs were essentially in the sequence of questions that the installer asked to configure certain things, rather than in the implementation. See my notes on #174348 and #174360. Colin Watson wrote: > However, there does need to be a designated place for >people to file d-i bugs (if they don't know what udeb is at fault, as >they probably won't for the most part). Ah, it hadn't occurred to me that d-i bugs should be filed against the specific package within d-i. I'm not really familiar with the package system, and even after seeing d-i's rather nifty internal multi-package structure I was still thinking of d-i as a monolithic entity, and didn't realise that there was actually no "debian-installer" package. I guess I should reassign the two still-open bugs to the appropriate packages, which I see the bug tracker does have maintainer information for. But yes, a "debian-installer" pseudo-package seems like a good idea, as a place to file bugs concerning the overall debian-installer mechanism, as well as for bugs not yet localised to a particular package. -zefram -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
