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

Bug#1006800: debian-installer: kernel mismatch for bookworm and sid installer. New release needed?

Removed: rb-general@lists.reproducible-builds.org

Hello Cyril,

On 05/03/2022 18:45, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Roland Clobus <rclobus@rclobus.nl> (2022-03-05):
On 05/03/2022 12:40, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
We could, and should, release a new d-i and possibly an Alpha 1 at some
point, but I don't have a specific timeline for that.

Understood. I assume that an Alpha 1 release will be made somewhere
near the release date of bookworm.

In the past I've tried to have an Alpha 1 released after a few months
into the new release cycle, then aim for something like a release every
1-2 months.

But the archive can disagree from time to time, and lately, I'm rather
busy with other things…

Understood. So I've focussed on building the daily image myself, using the git version.
This will
1) allow me to generate installer snapshots for testing and unstable that have their correct kernel version (because you diligently fix that in the git repo)
2) save you the time of doing new releases for testing and unstable.

After some hick-ups, I've got a working version now.
(See my aborted MR27: https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/debian-installer/-/merge_requests/27)

I'm currently preparing a 'rebuild' script for live-build, that will reproducibly re-generate an image, including the installer that matches that specific point in time.

If you are interested, it might be usable for the daily-build script as well, because it will not use the timestamp for SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH of midnight (the time the script is started), but the timestamp of the last completed snapshot of the archive.

How long do you need to go back / how long do you need to keep a given

I can go back as far as I want right now. There is no need any more for the d-i.debian.org snapshots when I recreate the installer.

With kind regards,

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: