Re: Bug#706989: Please add support for Ubuntu saucy
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 07:31:07PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Mittwoch, 8. Mai 2013, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Instead any
> > Ubuntu release that doesn't have a specific config should fall back to
> > a default ubuntu config.
> >
> > Similary any Debian release should have a fallback to a default Debian
> > config.
>
> so when debootstrap is being called to debootstrap "bonkers", how should it
> know whether thats the new Debian or Ubuntu release name?
http://ftp.debian.org/debian/dists/jessie/Release
Origin: Debian
Label: Debian
Suite: testing
Codename: jessie
Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 08:24:22 UTC
Valid-Until: Thu, 23 May 2013 08:24:22 UTC
Architectures: amd64 armel armhf i386 ia64 kfreebsd-amd64 kfreebsd-i386 mips mipsel powerpc s390 s390x sparc
Components: main contrib non-free
Description: Debian x.y Testing distribution - Not Released
...
http://de.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/quantal/Release
Origin: Ubuntu
Label: Ubuntu
Suite: quantal
Version: 12.10
Codename: quantal
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 7:23:38 UTC
Architectures: amd64 armel armhf i386 powerpc
Components: main restricted universe multiverse
Description: Ubuntu Quantal 12.10
...
The origin seems like a good indicator. At least for the known major
players.
Ideal would be a vendor chain listing all the vendors the repository
is derived from recursively. So Debian would have "Vendors: Debian"
and Ubuntu "Vendors: Ubuntu, Debian". Something based on Ubuntu would
then have "Vendors: FooBar, Ubuntu, Debian" and so on.
That way (c)debootstrap could go down the vendors chain until it has a
config and then hope that works.
MfG
Goswin
PS: dpkg already has the notion of vendors, this just needs to be
added to the repositories meta information somehow.
Reply to: