[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Let's talk about conflicts and omissions in the udeb distribution

Dimitri John Ledkov <xnox@debian.org> (2017-10-13):
> Because this is a generic question of what should happen, for packages
> and libraries that happened to be pulled into d-i.
> As d-i team doesn't maintainer/recompile udebs independent of maintainers...

You can always involve more people but not including debian-boot@ is

> first paragraph is not that relevant at all.

Well, my first paragraph didn't cover everything you wrote below, but
I did say we were aware of this, and that you may want to open a bug
report to track it. So feel free to do exactly that, instead of
dismissing it entirely.

> I have no opinion about whether src:kmod or src:binutils should
> provide modprobe et.al. But imho it should be done in a non-coflicting
> way, such that we do not rely on unpack orderings to win conflicts.

My memory might be faulty but I fail to remember a single case where
this has been a source of issues. We have plenty of things on our plate
already, so sorry if we haven't been fixing issues with no real life

> In general, is it expected in an ideal world
> (policy/project/consensus-wise) for all shared libraries used by d-i
> to be provided/shipped as udebs? As in are my current expectations
> sane? It looked to me like this sort of stuff has been happening since
> the dawn of time. And it is hard to tell if this is intentional, or
> accidental / needs-work.

This looks reasonable, and as I said, a few similar issues have been
fixed over the past few years.

> I am not sure why for example we compile .deb and .udeb of kmod for
> example, when the contents of .debs are perfectly adequate to be used
> in d-i environment (not talking about all other caveats as to why we
> have udebs)

Maybe look at its changelog, history, or talk to its maintainer. I'm not
kmod specialist.

> >> Maybe you should file bugs and/or discuss this on -boot.
> >
> > Of course, debian-boot@ is where d-i stuff happens; don't expect
> > people to be subscribed to debian-devel@ (which can be dropped from
> > further replies).
> ... but not all udebs are done by debian-boot@ people ;-)
> ps. i guess i should sleep on this, and then filebugs and work towards
> killing usage of mklibs-copy as redundant

Please make sure debian-boot@ gets a copy of all such bug reports (like
anything touching/affecting d-i in some way), and to get a green light
before “killing” anything.

Thanks already.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: