Petter Reinholdtsen <pere@hungry.com> (2014-09-11): > [Cyril Brulebois] > > Of course a failing d-i build means src:debian-installer FTBFS. What > > else would that be? > > Thanks for asking. To me, it could also mean a failing to build a ISO > with d-i udebs on it. But I had already tested ISO builds, and thus > was a bit unsure what was failing for you. That might be some kind of language barrier issue as you mentioned, but when I write “d-i build”, it's really about building d-i. If I want to talk about a cd/dvd/iso build, I write “cd/dvd/iso build”. > > Please explain how you managed to build installation images with a > > failing d-i build. > > The ISO build system understand and handle the provides header, and > the ISO build is working as before the deb was introduced, as can be > seen on for example > <URL: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-edu-commits/2014-September/008537.html >. ACK. > > I'm not sure why you're insisting on the renaming. Please explain > > why you did that (see my first follow-up). > > Somehow I get the impression that you do not really want to understand > why I did this change but just want a set of arguments to brush off > before reverting it, but I hope it is just a language barrier issue. Certainly a communication problem somwhere since I'm asking about the *renaming* part, and you're talking about the whole changeset. > Anyway, here are the explanation why I introduced a archdetect deb and > how the change have been tested so far. > > * A archdetect deb allow users on installed systems to figure out > which kernel the installer want to install on a given machine. > * The need for a normal deb for archdetect have been on the TODO list > for years, see for example debian-installer/doc/TODO listing this > entry in the "Post-etch goals" list: > - real deb from archdetect udeb (luther) This is the part I'm talking about: ,--- | > * The deb was already present in Ubuntu, under the name | > archdetect-deb. Adding the deb in Debian can reduce the diff with | > Ubuntu. | > * We normally in Debian name udebs with a -udeb postfix, and name | > packages after the binary they contain. Diverting from this common | > naming scheme should be avoided. This I decided to use the | > sensible name for the deb in Debian, and switch the udeb to have | > the name we commonly use for udebs in debian, <package>-udeb. `--- > * I knew d-i (anna-install and the rest of the d-i installation > system) would handle the provides header, and tested this on a > fresh install in a virtual machine before commiting the change. > * I checked how many udebs were depending on archdetect (6, if I > recall correctly), and new they would cope just fine with the > change. > * Knew the Debian archive would handle the rename, as udebs and debs > have different name spaces, and we use the provides method with > several library udebs already. > > So the change was tested and the installer was working as it should > also after the rename. The only thing I didn't test was building the > debian-installer source package itself, which broke as you correctly > observed. The simple fix is to replace archdetect with > archdetect-udeb, but a more proper fix is probably to teach the build > of d-i initrds to understand the provides header, to ensure similar > issues do not arise in the future. I disagree that reusing package names across package types is a nice thing to do. I very strongly disagree that it's OK to try that when we're close to the freeze (and not at the very beginning of the release cycle, where it hurts less to upload disruptive changes). As I already mentioned, you had been told in advance more stuff would have to be adjusted! Sticking to naming schemes is nice, but that certainly shouldn't be a reason for renaming packages and generating more work! You could look at the file you modified: | # These udebs will be needed on nearly every image. Include this file | # to get them. | busybox-udeb | anna | archdetect | cdebconf-udeb | cdebconf-priority | di-utils | di-utils-reboot | di-utils-shell | libdebconfclient0-udeb | libdebian-installer4-udeb | libnss-dns-udeb | lowmemcheck | main-menu | rootskel | udpkg | rescue-check | env-preseed | pciutils-udeb | | #include "udev" | | libkmod2-udeb [linux] | kldutils-udeb [kfreebsd] *-udeb really isn't mandatory in any way! So yes, I reverted these changes since renaming is unwarranted, already broke things, and might break others; I'm not interested in dealing with possible fallouts due to cosmetics. KiBi.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature