On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 03:11:08PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 08:34:02AM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: > >> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > - the kernel modules in a separate archive, of which there would be > >> > one by > >> > kernel version (upstream+abi), so as to keep d-i images alive even > >> > when > >> > new kernel versions are pushed in the archive. Further separation > >> > into > >> > flavours may help low memory systems on arches with a lot of > >> > flavours. > >> > >> The biggest problem here is that will looks like we'll support all > >> those combinations regarting security and also bug fixing and this > >> won't be true... that can be used if it stay just as a sid resource... > > > > Since the problem of moving versions only appears during the development > > phase > > of a release, not once it is released, this is indeed no problem at all. > > > > Please go ahead and try to do a beta3 netboot install right now, it will > > have > > trouble since we can't have 2.6.15 or whatever it was, and 2.6.17 kernel > > modules in the archive at the same time. Not easily anyway. > > Yes. I know it'll fail. > > I see the problem you're trying to address ... I just not sure if it's > the right way to solve it.
Do you see another way ? I mean, sure doing nothing and ignoring the issue is another way to address the issue, but somehow that is not very satisfying. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
