Re: [patch]Re: debootstrap on Debian GNU/kFreeBSD + questions
Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Luca Favatella <slackydeb@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 13/03/2009, Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> wrote:
>>> Luca Favatella <slackydeb@gmail.com> (12/03/2009):
>>>> Can you please tell me if
>>>> - someone already wrote patches for debootstrap to support more than a
>>>> suite (at the same time, i.e. sid and unreleased)?
>>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-bsd/2007/08/msg00005.html
>
> [...]
>> It seems to me that in debootstrap:
>> -or libbsd0 (and other packages) are downloaded but not extracted
>> -or mount is called too early
>
> It happens depending on the priority so mount is called early in case of
> bsd; I belive that it needs to be part of base in kfreebsd to properly
> fix it.
I also think it's because the mount providing package has a too low
priority field.
> [...]
>> Index: scripts/porters/extra-dependencies.pl
>> ===================================================================
>> --- scripts/porters/extra-dependencies.pl (revision 0)
>> +++ scripts/porters/extra-dependencies.pl (revision 0)
>
> [...]
>
> This looks to be the wrong way to fix missing dependencies for a
> specific kernel. I belive the right way to fix it is to have override
> based on kernel and then allow packages to have different sections and
> priorities depending on it.
>
> So for it to be done I belive we'd need to add this support on DAK
> (AFAIK it lacks it).
Is there any current need in being able to install old versions of
kfreebsd-*? If so, I think it would be best to generate separate suites
for them which probably could solve the above and otherwise it's just a
matter of changing the priorities of the right package set in
unreleased, no?
> [...]
>
>> Index: debootstrap.8
>> ===================================================================
>> --- debootstrap.8 (revision 57816)
>> +++ debootstrap.8 (working copy)
>> @@ -135,6 +135,30 @@
>> .IP "\fB\-\-debian\-installer\fP"
>> Used for internal purposes by the debian-installer
>> .IP
>> +.SH "PORTER OPTIONS"
>> +.
>> +.PP
>> +The following options should be useful only to porters whose arch has
>> +not yet been integrating into the official archive, and who need to
>> +download additional packages from a suite called \fIunreleased\fR or
>> +similar.
>> +.IP
>> +.IP "\fB\-\-extra\-mirror EXTRA_MIRROR\fP"
>> +Set the mirror for the extra packages, defaults to \fIMIRROR\fR.
>> +.IP
>> +.IP "\fB\-\-extra\-suite EXTRA_SUITE\fP"
>> +Set the suite name to use for the extra packages, defaults to
>> +\fIunreleased\fR.
>> +.IP
>> +.IP "\fB\-\-extra\-include=freebsd\-hackedutils,freebsd\-utils,...\fP"
>> +Set the packages to pull from there.
>> +.PP
>> +Note that all dependencies have to be solved manually: the extra
>> +included packages should be autosufficient (in \fIEXTRA_SUITE\fR);
>> +and their dependencies in \fISUITE\fR have to be added using
>> +\fB\-\-include\fP. A helper script is available in debootstrap's
>> +sources, see \fIscripts/porters/\fR).
>> +.IP
>> .SH "EXAMPLE"
>> .
>> .PP
>
> While I understand why those options are required I dislike the idea to
> have them at official deboostrap.
They are more generally useful though. Everyone who wants to test with
adding extra packages (that are not in Debian proper) to base could use
them.
> I'd much prefer to have it designed to work properly with the kfreebsd
> integrated on Debian. This could require that a small "hacked"
> debootstrap to be kept around for a while to be used in meanwhile.
The goal should indeed be proper integration.
Cheers
Luk
Reply to: