Re: Building boot images with boot-floppies on PowerMac
#include <hallo.h>
* debian@computerdatasafe.com.au [Wed, Jun 25 2003, 02:47:44PM]:
> > > > Stable still has 3.0.22. Is there a reason 3.0.23 never moved to
> > > > stable, Eduard?
> >
> > See above. Woody has been moved to stable under our asses, and to this
> > time there were an RC bug about potential security problems. One of the
> > problems with Debian's release system.
>
> I have tried the testing version. It fails too:
> 1393+1 records out
You did not understand the problem. It is not the version of BFs
whereever it now are, it is the location of the supplementary packages
like kernel-image-*; they are still located in unstable while the
build scripts look in Woody.
> /archive/debian/download/var/lib/apt/lists/debootstrap.invalid_dists_woody_main_binary-powerpc_Packages
> E: Couldn't download pcmcia-modules-2.4.18-newpmac
> E: ./kernel.sh abort
And the solution is: get those packages from the pool and store them in
your local package directory (see the "config" file).
> It seems to me part of the problem is that it has hard-coded into it
> versions of kernels to use, and the kernel maintainers have replaced
> those packages.
The kernel maintainers cannot replace or move packages easily - Woody is
stale^h^hble.
> I'm sure I can hack this thing to build the bootfloppies _I_ need, but
> that won't help others. Part of what I would do is prevent it from
> building for boxes I don't have.
And that is the reason why boot-floppies are no built by build daemons
but manually by each architecture maintainer.
> What I think should be happening is this:
> 1. Default to using mirror(s) from /etc/apt/sources.list. That would
> eliminate one of the customisations I must make.
> 2. Parse the Packages to the extent necessary to discover the most
> recent of each of the packages needed.
You can define a mirror in the config, that is not the problem. The problem is the Debian release which the
packages belong to. A possible workaround would be modifying the build
scripts to work with the pool structure (read: having a private version
of the /etc/apt directory where you can specify the priority of the
packages, scanning every Packages file available on that mirror), taking
the stable version of a package if possible and if not, fall-back on the
Sid version of the same package. Maybe you can use apt for this purpose,
but who is going to make this work? Many people declared the BFs as
doomed, I doubt that you really wish to stand up and work on it.
> 3. Maybe source a site configuration file from /etc/bootfloppies/ where
> the results of steps 1 and 2 can be adjusted.
Why /etc? We are just building a package, the changes on the host system
should be minimal.
> 4. Source a personal configuration file for further fine-tuning.
Feel free to create a such thing, I won't accept it in the "stable"
branch.
> I'm sure you can argue whether this idea is slightly broken: the main
> objective is to achieve something that is robust enough to work for the
It is quite robust as-is. It is just the FTP archive that is
incosistent.
> unsuspecting (me, for example) and to simplify customisation for more
> advanced use. Customising the config file doesn't seem to me especially
> elegant or robust, and I can imagine it causing problems with updates
> from CVS.
Nack. There only were few problems with CVS mergin in the hot
development phase.
MfG,
Eduard.
--
<Joey> Zeit fuer Bloedsinn zu haben, bedeutet noch lange nicht, ihn auch zu
machen.
Reply to: