Hi, Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> (2017-12-03): > debian-installer is using discover[1] to install some packages based > on the hardware it discovers. Unfortunately, discover is dead upstream > (Debian is the upstream really) and the hardware->package database is > not maintained at all. The fact it's been maintained “officially” by the D-I team (see its Maintainer field) but in separate repositories didn't quite help. > In the last years, Petter Rheinholdtsen worked on isenkram[2] with a > similar but a bit broader goal. I noticed it has better support > of clouds and that it will install some virtualization/cloud-related > packages automatically whereas discover does not. It also makes it easier > to install the appropriate firmware packages. > > I would thus suggest that we consider replacing discover by isenkram-cli. > > Last time I discussed this with Petter, he was willing to do the ground > work on the debian-installer side but he did not want to lead this > discussion. I'm thus starting the discussion myself. > > I see mainly benefits to such a move. The only downside is that it > would pull python by default. This entirely depends on whether we want > to keep it installed or not. We could install it just to do a single > scan and install pass during installation and then get rid of it (this > would then likely be made configurable with a debconf preseed). Well, I'm not sure it's really a good idea to put more packages in the default installation loop; we've been going the opposite direction for quite a while, and that seems like the right thing to do. Quick digression: As for virtualization and cloud support, it seems the cloud team has been working on standardizing a tool that fits most virt- & cloud- related needs (at least that's what I gathered from Steve's presentation during mini-DebConf in Cambridge), so I'm not entirely convinced by the net gain on the d-i side for this specific use case (if users are using something else entirely anyway…). Anyway, back to the isenkram suggestion: of course, using maintained stuff is better anyway. But that's a little more than just python: | Depends: debconf (>= 0.5) | debconf-2.0, python (<< 2.8), python (>= 2.7), python:any (>= 2.6.6-7~), appstream, python-gi, python-apt, gir1.2-appstream-1.0, lsb-release, curl, usbutils (The recursive dependency graph is a bit wider still.) I have no idea about the isenkram architecture, but reusing the “data files mapping hardware to packages” part is probaby a good idea. ISTR Petter mentioned we could strip bits and pieces and only use something that wouldn't depend on the whole lot, but I lost count. (That was likely back when we had to deal with hw-detect and firmware support.) Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois (kibi@debian.org) <https://debamax.com/> D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature