Santiago Vila wrote:
> Instead, the work of debootstrap is precisely to guess the right order
> in which packages should be configured so that everything work.
>
> In other words, essential packages should not get in the business of
> breaking dependency cycles, because that's debootstrap job.
>
> This way, maintainer scripts in essential packages are kept "clean"
> and all the hacks required for bootstrap are "accumulated" (so to speak)
> in debootstrap and similar tools.
As a debootstrap maintainer, I can't say I agree with this.
There are very few hacks and special cases of ordering in debootstrap today,
and for our sanity we'd like to keep it that way. I consider such
complications to be warts that need to be gotten rid of eventually.
Just compare /usr/share/debootstrap/scripts/{sid,sarge}. Which would
you rather maintain? And BTW that "sid" script works for 5 different
releases of debian, largely because it's not full of special cases and
hacks specific to particular releases.
> You will find a more complete explanation of this in the logs for
> Bug#760568 where I'm asked no less than to depend on base-passwd,
> which is essential! IMHO, this is definitely not the way to go.
It's past time to be untangling the Essential hairball. Correct dependency
metadata is much more scalable than hacks in debootstrap.
Stop being part of the problem, and add the dependency already..
--
see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature