Thiemo Seufer wrote:
severity 287021 wishlist thanks Daniel F. Dickinson wrote:Package: debian-installer Severity: serious Justification: 4 (Autobuilding)Rationale: rc2 is an official release candidate of the debian-installer, therefore checking out rc2 should successfully autobuild d-i rc2, including required udebs (since d-i without appropriate udebs is useless). This isn't the case.FWIW, I disagree. Only the separate udebs/packages have to be autobuildable.
Have I missed seeing separate packages for udebs? I used debian-installer for the this bug report because I don't know of a separate place to report udeb bugs.
However, on thinking about it further I still think the d-i+udeb being able to build is important because it's like a full debian release verse bugs against individual packages. It's not a release if there are release critical bugs, similiarly there is no d-i release if there are critical bugs in the udebs, or the udebs don't play nicely together.
from d-i-rc2 ./scripts/buildscriptThis is only a convenience script for developers. It puts the generated udebs in installer/build/localudebs/, where they should _not_ go for a production build. The production build should fetch the udebs from an apt-gettable repository.
The problem I have had with that, and the reason I use the buildscript in the first place, is that in testing, the udebs change so much that getting udebs that work properly for a full d-i+udeb 'release' doesn't seem to happen. Once things are in stable it will be different, but at present, getting something that works consistently is a nightmare (much worse than getting a working debian system out of sarge).
buildscript may be a convenience script, but the principle of having udeb packages that mesh properly with the d-i you're trying to build is more than just a convenience, it's essential when packages are changing frequently. Again, once in stable that's not an issue, but at present, having a d-i that works depends on having udebs that match the d-i version.