Bug#837060: debootstrap: Do not install packages of Priority:required for buildd variant
Hi,
I still think that is absolutely the wrong thing to do, and makes
debootstrap more fragile for no good reason. If you think a particular
package shouldn't be priority:required then file a bug against
ftp.debian.org to change it.
Cheers,
Julien
On Sat, Sep 23, 2023 at 20:13:45 +0200, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 06:01:13 +0200 Johannes Schauer <josch@debian.org> wrote:
> > Quoting Cyril Brulebois (2017-06-24 20:23:25)
> > > Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org> (2016-09-12):
> > > > This is a transient situation because some Essential packages'
> > > > dependencies changed. I'd consider this a bug in the archive, not in
> > > > debootstrap.
> > > Any reasons to keep this bug report open then? Seen no objections, so I'm
> > > tempted to close it.
> >
> > But... the buildd variant still explicitly (and not only implicitly through
> > dependencies of essential:yes packages) installs Priority:required packages,
> > no?
>
> as we are at the beginning of the trixie development cycle, I have opened a
> merge request against debootstrap which avoids installing priority:required
> packages with the buildd variant:
>
> https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/debootstrap/-/merge_requests/106#note_430035
>
> I've put Ansgar and Julien in CC as they were opposed to this change.
>
> I'm putting Luca and Guillem in CC who wrote in favour of this change also in
> policy bug #1029831.
>
> Santiago is in CC as the driver of the mass bug filing for source packages that
> fail to build in a chroot environment with just Essential:yes and
> build-essential installed.
>
> According to the last MBF from December 2022 and January 2023, there are 13
> source packages that would FTBFS after this change because they are missing an
> explicit build dependency on tzdata or mount.
>
> As part of the thread starting at
> 9b40f6f2-4942-acfc-2f9c-4668f05d9d97@debian.org a number of arguments were made
> for and against this change. I still believe that the arguments for this change
> weigh stronger than those against it and thus I filed that merge request above.
>
> Luca, as the debootstrap maintainer, what are your thoughts?
>
> Thank you!
>
> cheers, josch
Reply to: