Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > One thing that will completly break down without an empty status file > is building d-i images with an older libc than your systems (and what > some essential packages have a minimum version). Installing the older > libc6-pic file into the ramdisk for mklibs will cause apt to remove > essential packages (not realy since they aren't installed in the > initrd) and break the build. But even with the right glibc the > downloading of debs for the d-i cdrom images (not debian-cd build > ones) will break down if any installed deb conflicts with the base > debs, i.e. i you don't have the default MTA installed (I still > have exim3 and not exim4 for example). Please keep debs and udebs separate when discussing this. I have never objected to using a dummy status file when it is operating on debs. The libc version mismatch stuff always causes the build to fail in a way we're well familiar with, and is easy to correct when it happens. > Don't. Fix the broken udebs, fix the archive scripts to allow equaly > named packages for debs and udebs to get all the shlibs bugs fixed. > Package up the missing libraries as udebs or convince Joey to allow > me using debs. See, this is a lot of work, and we want to have a releasable installer in two weeks.. -- see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature