On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 03:13:28PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote: > Colin is right of course. I confused lib-di and di-utils :-( > It also has the advantage that a lot of components already declare a > dependency on d-i-utils. > > That is also the one thing I'm not quite sure about though. If we do this > structurally, we'll basically end up needing to add a dependency on > di-utils to every udeb.
No, di-utils is already considered as the equivalent of Essential. Plenty of stuff already uses it without a dependency (although there are a number of dependencies anyway due to versioning). > However, if we add it to rootskel we would not need to do that as rootkel > can just be expected to be "there" for any D-I environment. di-utils has just the same status as rootskel in that regard. > Especially for a really basic function library providing logging > functions, that seems quite appropriate. Please don't put code libraries in rootskel. rootskel's job is to bring the system up; it doesn't provide library facilities for other udebs. Joey put effort a couple of years back into trimming rootskel down back to the skeleton it should be, moving things to various other places including di-utils. > Note that log-output is somewhat different from this as it is a separate > utility, not a function library. True, though it has a similar purpose. > A better comparison would be chroot-setup.sh, which is used by e.g. > in-target, but can also be sourced directly by scripts in udebs. ... which is in di-utils and belongs there, just as this would. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
