1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. LINUX.DEBIAN.DEVEL

  • Re: Bug#1072501: ITP: systemd-boot-installer -- Install systemd-boot on

    From Simon Richter@21:1/5 to Luca Boccassi on Mon Jun 3 06:10:01 2024
    Hi,

    On 6/3/24 09:33, Luca Boccassi wrote:

    * Package name : systemd-boot-installer

    Can this be merged into the normal systemd source package?

    Simon

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Philipp Kern@21:1/5 to Simon Richter on Mon Jun 3 09:00:01 2024
    On 03.06.24 05:43, Simon Richter wrote:
    On 6/3/24 09:33, Luca Boccassi wrote:

    * Package name    : systemd-boot-installer

    Can this be merged into the normal systemd source package?

    I feel like from a d-i perspective that'd be highly unusual? Having the
    purely d-i-specific components be owned by d-i is the common setup.

    Kind regards
    Philipp Kern

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Simon Richter@21:1/5 to Philipp Kern on Mon Jun 3 13:10:01 2024
    Hi,

    On 6/3/24 15:33, Philipp Kern wrote:

    * Package name    : systemd-boot-installer
    Can this be merged into the normal systemd source package?

    I feel like from a d-i perspective that'd be highly unusual? Having the purely d-i-specific components be owned by d-i is the common setup.

    If it doesn't make sense to merge it (i.e. because it is a glue package
    between two unstable interfaces), then that is fine, but I think that
    the interfaces on both the d-i and the systemd side are stable enough.

    Simon

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Colin Watson@21:1/5 to Simon Richter on Mon Jun 3 14:30:01 2024
    On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 07:51:44PM +0900, Simon Richter wrote:
    On 6/3/24 15:33, Philipp Kern wrote:

    * Package name    : systemd-boot-installer
    Can this be merged into the normal systemd source package?

    I feel like from a d-i perspective that'd be highly unusual? Having the purely d-i-specific components be owned by d-i is the common setup.

    If it doesn't make sense to merge it (i.e. because it is a glue package between two unstable interfaces), then that is fine, but I think that the interfaces on both the d-i and the systemd side are stable enough.

    From the d-i side we've generally preferred to have all the UI be part
    of the installer (especially for translations etc.).

    --
    Colin Watson (he/him) [[email protected]]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Simon Richter@21:1/5 to Colin Watson on Mon Jun 3 15:50:01 2024
    Hi,

    On 6/3/24 21:05, Colin Watson wrote:

    From the d-i side we've generally preferred to have all the UI be part
    of the installer (especially for translations etc.).

    Makes sense, thanks!

    Simon

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)