Re: [RFC] No longer create full set of static devices during install
On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 12:52:18PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 November 2007, Colin Watson wrote:
> > +1 also,
>
> Cool. I've just committed the changes I had prepared (and tested).
> I'd very much appreciate a review of these changes.
Looks fine to me.
> One thing that is not completely nice is that bootstrap-base now installs a
> file in /usr/lib/debootstrap/. I thought about putting it elsewhere, but
> think the current location is defensible as well with the rationale that it
> provides a missing component of debootstrap.
It's a minor layering violation, but I think it's OK here. Perhaps add a
comment to debootstrap that the pkgdetails API needs to be kept in sync
with base-installer, so that we don't forget in future.
> > except I'd do it by adding:
> > elif type udpkg >/dev/null 2>&1 && udpkg --print-architecture
> > >/dev/null 2>&1; then ARCH=`udpkg --print-architecture`
> >
> > ... to debootstrap rather than passing the architecture in from
> > base-installer.
>
> Hmmm. Why?
Regularity: debootstrap already does the same thing with dpkg.
> We also control other (IMO similar) parameters from base-installer and your
> suggestion adds an (admittedly light) dependency on D-I internals to
> debootstrap.
The other parameters base-installer passes are ones that debootstrap
can't easily figure out for itself. I think 'udpkg --print-architecture'
is a stable enough interface that it's OK to use it if available.
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@debian.org]
Reply to: