Re: Bug#964248: marked as done (base-installer: Pass "--extra-suites=unreleased" to debootstrap on ports arches)
Hello!
On 8/17/20 10:28 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> John Paul Adrian Glaubitz, le lun. 17 août 2020 10:17:24 +0200, a ecrit:
>> On 8/17/20 1:06 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>>>> I checked the patch and it enables "unreleased" unconditionally. I'm
>>>> not sure whether that's a good idea.
>>>
>>> I don't think we really have a better choice: writing yet another arch
>>> list looks dirty, and trying whether the suite is available is probably
>>> quite complex to implement.
>>
>> ... I don't quite understand why "unreleased" is supposed to be part of the
>> base installation.
>
> For ports architectures, it often is, because the sid archive does not
> contain various packages that ports need.
Well, that's not correct since the only additional packages needed are some
bootloaders (emile for m68k, for example) and those are shipped on the
installation CD.
In the case of Debian Hurd, the case here is a package temporarily being
sourced from "unreleased" because the version from unstable FTBFS on
unstable.
>> "unreleased" is not a regular package archive and all
>> packages in there are usually only added temporarily.
>
> AFAIK that's not what ports' daily life really is.
Yes, it is. I actually think I have a good overview over this.
>> Does Debian Hurd require packages from "unreleased" for it's base system?
>
> The Hurd needs netdde from there. It happens that the hurd package
> itself is still in sid but that's only by luck because there's the
> arch:all hurd-doc package.
And that package is required for the base-system and cannot be installed
later?
> But that's far from being specific to the Hurd. Various ports have
> various requirements such as bootloaders.
These are always shipped on the installation CD. It also affects m68k
only as alpha, hppa, powerpc, ppc64, sh4 and sparc64 use either GRUB or have
their bootloaders in unstable.
Does Hurd not use GRUB?
>> Since "unreleased" is not properly maintained due to the fact that all
>> packages there are built and uploaded manually, I rather prefer them not
>> to be enabled by default, especially not for the base system.
>
> They are uploaded manually by the porters themselves. They are
> responsible for what they upload there, so I don't see why it would
> be harmful? On the contrary, it provides flexibility for fixing
> installability without having to wait for sid to have fixes uploaded.
The problem with "unreleased" is that there are no binNMUs and no proper
maintenance by a package maintainer. I always try to avoid using "unreleased"
whenever possible.
--
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' : Debian Developer - glaubitz@debian.org
`. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de
`- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
Reply to: