Re: [PATCH] Support for "hardware burn-in" stage

On Saturday 09 February 2008, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
> Chris' proposal would gives us the same situation as ppp-udeb.
> There would be some code depending highly on how d-i is working as a
> whole (its components might change along the development) which would
> not be easily modifiable by the d-i team.

I disagree. Splitting this in two would give us _two_ new extremely small udebs instead of one. The functionality in the postinst script of cpuburn is trivial.

> The removal of "ifconfig" made me aware of this situation for ppp-udeb,
> and I think it would be better if we could avoid it in the future.  It
> would also enable Chris' to maintain the installer component without
> having to bother Aurélien everytime he would like to improve the stress
> test without touching cpuburn.

That's only a very limited disadvantage as the cpuburn udeb is not likely to require much maintenance.

The only moment such a split would make sense to me if a stress-test udeb would become a kind of wrapper around multiple hardware test tools, but IMO the split could always be done at that time.

Cheers,
FJP P.S. I also don't really see the problem with ppp-udeb and in that case the udeb-specific stuff is even interwoven a _lot_ tighter with the ppp stuff itself which means that it would be likely that you'd need coordinated changes in two places.

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org


application/pgp-signature attachment: This is a digitally signed message part.