Re: Bug#902226: debian-installer-netboot-images: FTBFS in stretch, even when allowing network access
Hi theres,
Le lundi, 25 juin 2018, 01.33:38 h CEST Cyril Brulebois a écrit :
> Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> (2018-06-24):
> > At first glance, it seems to me this bug could be addressed in two
> > different ways, which don't seem to be too convoluted. The first way
> > would be to try the s-p-u download and fall back to s download, for each
> > and every download. But this could (probably only theoretically) lead to
> > inconsistent downloads, mixing bits and pieces from s-p-u and from s.
> > Plus plenty of errors when the default location isn't the right one.
Exactly. If a pure s-p-u build fails, it's because the s-p-u debian-installer
isn't built on all architectures, so the d-i-n-i s-p-u build should really
fail. (acronyms ftw)
> > I suppose a better way would be to figure out with an early test if the
> > target version is available in s-p-u or in s, and then pick the right
> > suite for all downloads. Patches for this second approach are welcome.
That seems more fool-proof and consistent: download from a single suite:
either from s-p-u or from stretch only, and for all archs.
> I've pushed a prospective branch (pu/fix-ftbfs-in-stretch) with two commits:
> https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/debian-installer-netboot-images/com
> mit/86f910f8e1e60e308747a7f53045862705b0a132
> https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/debian-installer-netboot-images/com
> mit/eb2e5b3fb437b288c4c83427fb1c0d213f7b5a5e
Looks good to me, given that strategy.
> Only checked with the first few architectures (still on limited bandwidth),
> but that seems to do the trick. Slightly not happy about having that check
> and fallback done for each and every architecture (instead of once and for
> all), which could again lead to bits and pieces from both sources mixed
> together); but I guess that's a reasonable compromise (no big changes needed
> in the code).
I've tried for some time to (ab)use make targets to modify DISTRIBUTION
depending on partial calls to get_images, but failed.
Given my failed attempts, I suspect your patches are the lesser evil for
solving this. But I'm not convinced that solving this is better than ensuring
we only ever build "pure-stretch" or "pure-stretch-proposed-updates" d-i-n-
i's.
> I'll let others comment on this bug report plus proposed solution; Didier
> maybe?
Thanks for the explicit ping; I'm not on top of Debian things these days.
Cheers,
OdyX
Reply to: