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

Re: deb822 support [.sources for apt] in d-i (was: Merge request on apt-setup)



Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> writes:

> Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> (2025-05-15):
>> Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> writes:
>> 
>> > The problem is that apt-setup is currently working on a single
>> > sources.list file, and having the 60local generator work on a different
>> > one would likely mean reworking the debconf automaton quick a bunch. It
>> > could also break the CI (mostly run/monitored by the other Roland and by
>> > Phil, hence the explicit cc).
>> 
>> It seems to me that we need a new debconf setting, so that code to
>> migrate towards deb822 usage can be added without immediately breaking
>> things.
>> 
>> We could have e.g. `apt-setup/use-deb822-format` that might take values
>> like:
>> 
>>   `no`:
>>      everything should be in sources.list format.
>>      
>>      Is that what we currently have, or are we already in a mixed state,
>>      with some things generating deb822 already?
>
> [ and yes-maybe, and yes ]
>
> What I was trying to convey above is that absolutely everything is
> sources.list-centric, not just the format, but also that one particular
> file.
>
> The core of the debconf state machine (what I called automaton) is about
> writing a temporary file, passing it to apt-setup-verify after the

Ah, right, good point.

Yes, changing that in the short term seem quite unwise, so I guess a
rewritten deb822 version of apt-setup, post-release, is what we'll need.

[...]
>>   'update':
>>      use apt-get update to convert .list files
>
> Assuming we're talking about `apt modernize-sources` here, that's the
> only part that would seem easy to experiment with: we would only need
> to control whether to post-process the generated sources.list file,
> without starting with a big logic rewrite.

That's what I meant.

Cheers, Phil.
-- 
Philip Hands -- https://hands.com/~phil

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: