Hi, Steven Chamberlain <email@example.com> (2017-02-26): > Colin Watson wrote: > > Just FYI, since it's not clear from > > https://wiki.debian.org/InstallerDebacle that you know this, the > > installer in fact uses debootstrap rather than cdebootstrap to install > > the base system. > > I didn't realise that, thanks. There was still a cdebootstrap-udeb in > wheezy, so that installer is affected? But not releases since. Well, I've only been doing d-i releases for a few cycles, but base-installer's history shows no cdebootstrap-udeb in its Depends, ever; granted, history starts at this point: | commit 5203c4b49f36c4372de948f6b3edc1b9c4041a7a | Author: Tollef Fog Heen <firstname.lastname@example.org> | Date: Sat Apr 27 19:16:08 2002 +0000 | | Initial checkin | | r637 > base-installer seems it would (still now) use it in preference to > regular debootstrap, *if* it was available in the installer: > http://sources.debian.net/src/base-installer/1.168/debian/bootstrap-base.postinst/?hl=145#L145 The only reference I see in debian-installer's history is its being added in post-sarge goals, before being removed again, so it looks to me it would only be put there by people who are supposed to know what they're doing? Adding to this my initial comments about anna and net-retriever, I think it might have made sense to be a little less clickbaity with the whole “debacle” title. While there's clearly room for improvements in various components, I'm not sure the installation process is as broken as you made it to be. KiBi.
Description: Digital signature