Quoting Cyril Brulebois (k...@debian.org): > Christian PERRIER <bubu...@debian.org> (04/12/2010): > > > I unmarked this for translation. > > > > > > My opinion, indeed, is that if ZFS is unsafe on kfreebsd-i386, > > > then partman-zfs should no tbe kfreebsd-any but only > > > kfreebsd-amd64 > > > > As suggested by Robert, I bring this to -bsd as well. > > > > My main point was that adding a new debconf template to a D-I > > package is, at this moment of the release process, not an > > option. Particularly if that template is about warning users for > > potential problems. > > Alternative way: keep it available on kfreebsd-i386, but do not make > use/propose it from d-i (for a while)?
Well, if partman-zfs is "Arch: kfreebsd-amd64", this is exactly what will happen. It doesn't prevent using ZFS on kfreebsd-i386 but the filesystem won't be offered *in D-I* as an option for i386 installs.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
