Re: Which pseudo-package do ARM netboot image slices belong to?
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 05:07:45PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> (2015-11-10):
> > I've hit a bug¹ in a non-package part of Debian, identified that it is
> > tied to variations not in package releases but web-facing parts of
> > official Debian:
> > http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/dists/stretch/main/installer-armhf/$timestamp/images/netboot/SD-card-images/
> >
> > I filed a bugreport against the pseudo-package seeming most appropriate,
> > but then got no (maintainer) response for a week. That delay might be
> > perfectly fine (I often have far worse reaction time myself), but made
> > me wonder: Did I file it wrongly, so that the bug isn't "heard"?
> >
> > Which pseudo-package do ARM netboot image slices belong to?
> >
> > or more generally:
> >
> > Is there some way of verifying which pseudo-package(s) is(/are)
> > appropriate for targeting a bugreport, when web address is known?
> >
> > For real packages where I have located a file involved, I can verify if
> > a proper package is targeted by use of "dpkg -L ..." or "apt-file search
> > ..." or similar tools. Do we have similar ways to check (preferrably
> > without needing login to specific Debian hosts) which pseudo-package
> > some official area of Debian web services belong to? E.g. a public list
> > of which team has write access to which parts of our web-facing
> > services?
> >
> > I am aware of https://www.debian.org/Bugs/pseudo-packages but that's
> > comparable to grep'ing package descriptions to pinpoint where a bug
> > belongs, nowhere as accurate a verification as "dpkg -L ..." or
> > "apt-file search ...".
>
> Karsten, Ian, and other arm people,
>
> This makes me wonder whether those sd card images should be packaged and
> shipped somehow (through d-i-n-i or elsewhere), instead of just being
> published through the installer-* directories.
>
> What's your take on this?
Hello,
personally I don't think that packaging the images would bring us
an advantage that is worth the costs.
Adding them to debian-installer-netboot-images would IMHO not
really fit - d-i-n-i provides files for serving over the network
("real" netboot stuff, i.e. TFTP/PXE boot), while the SD-card
images are the ARM equivalent of the i386/amd64 mini.iso, which
we also don't package in d-i-n-i. Besides that, finding the
proper package to report bugs against via "dpkg -L" or "apt-file
search" also doesn't work with the binary packages generated by
d-i-n-i, because their actual content - against which one would
want to file a bug - is not built by d-i-n-i but by
src:debian-installer. This could of course be changed by
integrating d-i-n-i into the d-i build system and making the
packages children of d-i, but from my personal point of view I
don't see much need for that.
Regards,
Karsten
P.S.:
Just as an aside for those who do not regularly follow d-i
development:
The "netboot" terminology here is a bit unfortunate - within the
d-i build system, we call "netboot" everything that loads
installer components and installs packages primarily over the
network, regardless of whether the installer is actually booted
over the net (netboot tarball), loaded from a CD (i386/amd64
mini.iso) or loaded from an SD-card (ARM SD-card images), while
debian-installer-netboot-images uses netboot in the sense of
"loading the kernel and the initrd over the network by TFTP/PXE".
--
Gem. Par. 28 Abs. 4 Bundesdatenschutzgesetz widerspreche ich der Nutzung
sowie der Weitergabe meiner personenbezogenen Daten für Zwecke der
Werbung sowie der Markt- oder Meinungsforschung.
Reply to: