Re: Bug#100996: To Stephen
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 02:47:19PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 12:24:49PM -0600, Matt Kraai wrote:
>
> > That's not true. If the information about which packages
> > constituted the base system was stored elsewhere (such as in the
> > Section fields of the Package file) then it wouldn't be necessary
> > to update debootstrap each time the list of base packages changed.
>
> not all archetectures need the same base packages though. powerpc for
> example needs hfsutils, no other archetecture needs that package so
> why force it on them? unless you get really hackish and have some
> wierd archetecture list in with the hypothetical base feild.
This information should be kept within the packages themselves (or
some override file). Keeping it in debootstrap (or any other
single package) is bound to break. Witness the brokeness of late
regarding groff. The maintainer filed a bug, and debootstrap was
updated, but how do you ensure that the woody script (and the
boot-floppies) are updated exactly when the change makes it into
woody?
If we encoded this information in the package headers (such as the
essential field), this would all just work when something like
this happens. And regarding different architecture requirements,
we already do this for build-depends, so I fail to see the
problem. Anyway, there is already a bug about this against
debootstrap, so I'll shut up now.
Matt
Reply to: