Re: Vanillux live iso
On 15/08/11 05:11 AM, Fabrice Quenneville wrote:
>> ftr: you said you're doing a derivative (in lb terms) for which you need
>> 3.x, it only got revealed later that you're actually doing a
>> distribution (in lb terms) for which you don't necessarily need 3.x.
> Hmmm i never said i was a derivative actually i just posted my configs
> and the error mesages and you said
Perhaps I was mistaken about your needs, in that case, as I at first
thought derivatives mode was what you were after, since you appeared to
be one. I did not understand at that point that it was not really
suitable in the case where your derivatives model is not live-build's
derivatives model (which is Debian as a main repo *plus* the
derivative's extra repos, rather than the derivative wholly replacing
the repo, which is supported with --mode as in Ubuntu's case).
>>> so i am wondering what im doing wrong.
>> if you use derivatives mode, you should make sure you're using lb
>> 3.0~a26-1 or newer.
> I had never heard of the derivative mode before and was using a21
Daniel did not tell you to use derivatives mode. He said *if* you use
derivatives mode, use a26 or newer. I believe I was the first to point
out that 3.x has a derivatives and wondered if that would be a good fit
>>> And as a programmer it makes no sense if you break existing features
>>> or modify their behavior.
>> there are no existing features broken; there are no features modified in
>> their behaviour (except for syntax changes in config/*, but that surely
>> was not wat you ment).
> the man pages sais:
> --mirror-chroot URL
> sets the location of the Debian package mirror that will be used to
> fetch the packages in order to build the live system. By default, this
> is set to the value of --mirror-bootstrap.
The man page of which version? In a26 and a29 there is:
sets the location of the debian package mirror that will be used
to fetch the packages of the derivative in order to build the live
system. By default, this is set to the value of --mirror-bootstrap.
Seems clear to me.
> but in fact that feature is disabled unless in derivative mode, that
> feature is not working as it should as per the man page.
Please check which version you got that excerpt from.
> You told me
> so in your 3rd response:
>>> it still tryes to pull from debian.
>> this is because you have not set --mode, which means it remains default
>> (=debian) which doesn't make use of derivatives handling.
Historically, --mode changed the major mode of operation for numerous
things for a project such as ubuntu or emdebian that does not adhere to
the Debian repo + additional repository model. Supporting such
derivatives had quite a bit of extra overhead to handle each case, as
such derivatives diverge so much from Debian that we cannot know exactly
what they contain. Therefore, it has always been necessary that at least
one person who both knows their own derivative intimately and knows
live-build code intimately provides us with a stream of patches to
continue to support their mode to keep up support for it. As you can
see, that's not an easily sustainable model.
As I understand it, the new support is for a lighter weight alternative
model for derivatives, having most packages taken from Debian and
additional packages from the derivatives repo. This "Debian plus" model
of a derivative is much easier to support because it is essentially
Debian with few changes to packages concentrated in the additional
packages that derivative provides.
Your model seems to be something that is not quite one and not quite the
other. You're not a "full derivative" (for lack of a better term) which
completely branches from Debian, replicating all our infrastructure
(including people within your project who intimately know live-build and
provide us with patches). Nor are you a "Debian plus" derivative, which
would be a lot easier to support.
>>> Take your time to code all of that, not to
>>> be able to leave a simple note in the man page for the users like
>> for the love of god.. the package itself is in *experimental*..
>> *experimental*.. *experimental*..
> How does that justify not documenting your development process in the
> man if all it needs is a few words to save users hours if not days of
Clearly it doesn't need "a few words", as no amount of words so far have
led us to a satisfactory solution, especially since we're not even
consulting the same versions of the man page.
I haven't the time before I head out to work to address each additional
point of your email point by point, but until we're at least discussing
the same man page version, I am not sure what the point of it would be.