[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#509855: marked as done ("flat" mirror type)



Your message dated Fri, 23 Jan 2009 23:43:03 +0100
with message-id <20090123224303.GA32338@thorin>
and subject line Re: Bug#509855: "flat" mirror type
has caused the Debian Bug report #509855,
regarding "flat" mirror type
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
509855: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=509855
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: debootstrap
Version: 1.0.10
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch

This patch implements the "flat" mirror type, a trivial archive made by
running dpkg-scanpackages on a single directory.

This is very useful when bootstrapping new ports, at the stage in which a
proper archive is not setup and one wants to build a base system out of
a set of hand-built debs.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 5.0
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.18-6-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=ca_AD.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=ca_AD.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash

Versions of packages debootstrap depends on:
ii  binutils            2.18.1~cvs20080103-7 The GNU assembler, linker and bina
ii  wget                1.11.4-2             retrieves files from the web

debootstrap recommends no packages.

debootstrap suggests no packages.

-- no debconf information
diff -ur debootstrap-1.0.10/functions debootstrap-1.0.10.new/functions
--- debootstrap-1.0.10/functions	2008-12-27 00:50:04.810414076 +0000
+++ debootstrap-1.0.10.new/functions	2008-12-27 00:50:24.834985012 +0000
@@ -226,6 +226,10 @@
 		DOWNLOAD_INDICES=download_main_indices
 		DOWNLOAD_DEBS=download_main
 		;;
+	    flat)
+		DOWNLOAD_INDICES=download_flat_indices
+		DOWNLOAD_DEBS=download_main
+		;;
 	    *)
 		error 1 BADMIRROR "unknown mirror style"
 		;;
@@ -674,6 +678,28 @@
 	progress 100 100 DOWNMAINPKGS "Downloading Packages file"
 }
 
+download_flat_indices () {
+	local m1="${MIRRORS%% *}"
+	progress 0 100 DOWNMAINPKGS "Downloading Packages file"
+	progress_next 100
+	COMPONENTS=main
+	export COMPONENTS
+	for m in $MIRRORS; do
+	    for c in $COMPONENTS; do
+	    	local m_path="Packages"
+		local path="dists/$SUITE/$c/binary-$ARCH/Packages"
+	    	local pkgdest="$TARGET/$($DLDEST pkg "$SUITE" "$c" "$ARCH" "$m" "$path")"
+	    	if [ -x /bin/gunzip ] && get "$m/${m_path}.gz" "${pkgdest}.gz"; then
+			rm -f "$pkgdest"
+			gunzip "$pkgdest.gz"
+	    	elif get "$m/$m_path" "$pkgdest"; then
+			true
+		fi
+	    done
+	done
+	progress 100 100 DOWNMAINPKGS "Downloading Packages file"
+}
+
 download_main () {
 	local m1="${MIRRORS%% *}"
 

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 12:57:51AM +0000, Robert Millan wrote:
> Package: debootstrap
> Version: 1.0.10
> Severity: wishlist
> Tags: patch
> 
> This patch implements the "flat" mirror type, a trivial archive made by
> running dpkg-scanpackages on a single directory.
> 
> This is very useful when bootstrapping new ports, at the stage in which a
> proper archive is not setup and one wants to build a base system out of
> a set of hand-built debs.

I realized that creating a "proper" mirror structure that debootstrap will
process is not such a big deal, even if you have to do it by hand.  I think
my patch is not really that useful.

-- 
Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."


--- End Message ---

Reply to: