Hi Ole, Ole Streicher <oleb...@debian.org> (2016-05-23): > Hi Cyril, > > > Just to clarify this, since I was the one who actually did and > uploaded the change: > > It was not my intention to hijack the installation process. In some > earlier mail on bug#758116, you mentioned that you cannot promise that > you don't know if/when you have time to look into the integration of the > Blends into the installer yourself [1]. For me, this sounds that we have > to do it ourself if we want to get it in. And I tried it openly: The > current solution was proposed in the bug#758116 [2], which was mirrored > to debian-boot@l.d.o, and I asked explicitly for comments before the > upload. Since no-one replied, I re-assigned the bug to src:blends (since > this was the proposed place to actually fix it) and uploaded the new > version with the package priority needed to get it into the basic system. > > I feel now a bit unhappy that there was no discussion about the topic > before the upload, but I don't see what I could have done better > (otherwise please give me a hint so that I can learn from it). However, > as I said, that was not meant to be hijacking. If we find a better > solution that does not need to include the debian-blends-tasks.desc, we > can remove it. IMO it *is* however a good idea to keep tasksel using > everything it finds in /usr/share/tasksel/descs/; this enables a > relatively easy way to customize Debian here. Within Debian, we as a > community should be able to find a solution that does not need to secure > the installation process from "whatever people have managed to get into > a basic system".
Let me start by confirming what Holger wrote: I wasn't assuming bad faith on your part, even though I see how you could think I was; sorry about that. (Not trying to look for excuses, just candidly sharing my thoughts.) The most annoying part of my job as a d-i release manager is that I just can't follow each and every enhancement request (bug fix, behaviour change, defaults update, etc.). I don't think it would be a good idea to block on my giving a go for all of them anyway, so I can certainly understand why people would just go ahead, especially after having contacted debian-boot@ and asked for feedback, like you did. Unfortunately, some changes are only noticed while we're in the process of releasing, which takes time and energy from various teams, in a specific order. For example, fixing a simple bug in two components delayed the release by 2+ days, even though we tried to cheat a bit and trigger an extra britney run to speed up things between two dinstalls. In this particular case, this problem was emphasized by the fact I haven't been able to keep up with debian-boot@ for several months in a row, so a bunch of changes piled up and were only discovered during this round of testing. That's not your fault; mind you, I sometimes have to deal with personal matters. KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
