On Tuesday 11 December 2007, Colin Watson wrote: > On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 06:56:11PM +0000, Stephen Gran wrote: > > The second problem is just a practical one: where to put it? > > libdebian-installer seems like the obvious place at first glance, but > > maybe something else is set up earlier? It would only need to be > > unpacked on disk relatively early to be useful. > > libdebian-installer is pretty much all C, and I think it's probably > better not to mix languages there. debian-installer-utils is its shell > counterpart in some ways. You mentioned logging; I think > debian-installer-utils would be a good place for that (it already has > log-output, for instance). Colin is right of course. I confused lib-di and di-utils :-( It also has the advantage that a lot of components already declare a dependency on d-i-utils. That is also the one thing I'm not quite sure about though. If we do this structurally, we'll basically end up needing to add a dependency on di-utils to every udeb. However, if we add it to rootskel we would not need to do that as rootkel can just be expected to be "there" for any D-I environment. Especially for a really basic function library providing logging functions, that seems quite appropriate. Note that log-output is somewhat different from this as it is a separate utility, not a function library. A better comparison would be chroot-setup.sh, which is used by e.g. in-target, but can also be sourced directly by scripts in udebs.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.