On Wednesday 10 February 2010, Colin Watson wrote: > Frankly, every time I've tried to add a feature to d-i of late that > involved using some non-trivial amount of extra space, I've had to wade > through so many objections about breaking floppy support or old > architectures that I simply gave up. Perhaps that's why I didn't have > much will to try in this case;
armel is not an "old architecture" and today we've had to disable a few languages because the initrd for one class of systems was failing to build because of size issues. Size has always been and will always be a concern for D-I and is something that requires constant attention. Especially for components that get included in every single image. I've never blocked changes in busybox-udeb. I just like to see them a) quantified, b) justified by an explanation of the benefits, c) checked for possible alternative solutions, d) discussed. If after that there's consensus that it's a good idea, you won't hear from me anymore. > I've been trying on and off to get enough busybox features for Kickstart > to work for four years ... As for the kickstart related change (#348314): that's also simply a BR that's seen no activity at all since it was opened. And TBH kickstart is a case where I personally seriously wonder what real benefits it brings. It may be a cool feature but I can't remember ever seeing a request for it from a user on the d-boot list. I don't really see us using getopt for anything else. Cheers, FJP -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
