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

Re: [patch]Re: debootstrap on Debian GNU/kFreeBSD + questions

Luca Favatella <slackydeb@gmail.com> writes:

> On 13/03/2009, Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> wrote:
>> Luca Favatella <slackydeb@gmail.com> (12/03/2009):
>>> Can you please tell me if
>>> - someone already wrote patches for debootstrap to support more than a
>>> suite (at the same time, i.e. sid and unreleased)?
>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-bsd/2007/08/msg00005.html


> I tried to run kbsd-debootstrap.sh (the refreshed one by me). I got:
> /lib/freebsd/mount: error while loading shared libraries: libbsd.so.0:
> cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
> After chrooting in sandbox, I installed (with dpkg) libc0.1, libgcc1
> and libbsd0 (all packages where already downloaded in /var/cache/...).
> After that, I tried:
> mount -t devfs devfs /dev
> and I got no error.

First I'm curious why to use another script to install instead of
regular debootstrap. Did you try to "merge" your required changes in

> It seems to me that in debootstrap:
> -or libbsd0 (and other packages) are downloaded but not extracted
> -or mount is called too early

It happens depending on the priority so mount is called early in case of
bsd; I belive that it needs to be part of base in kfreebsd to properly
fix it.


> Is there any possibility to merge these refreshed patches in debootstrap svn?

Sure there're but not before they're tested and workarounds got removed.  

> Is there any collection of tests to ensure that no regressions is
> introduced in debootstrap?

Not ATM.

> Is there any rewriting effort of debootstrap underway?

Not ATM. Why it would be required?

> Should I consider improving crosshurd, or is it deprecated in favour
> of debootstrap?

If we could merge it, it would be the right thing to do I guess. Anyone

> I noted that ging (Debian GNU/kFreeBSD live cd) is based upon
> crosshurd: if I play with ging, should I consider improving crosshurd
> or porting it to debootstrap?

I'd say to try to merge it into debootstrap.

For the work to be easier I'd suggest you to keep a debootstrap svn
mirror using git-svn and use it for your development effort so you can
easily rebase your patches against current source and others are also
free to help to get things fixed with you.


> Index: scripts/porters/extra-dependencies.pl
> ===================================================================
> --- scripts/porters/extra-dependencies.pl	(revision 0)
> +++ scripts/porters/extra-dependencies.pl	(revision 0)


This looks to be the wrong way to fix missing dependencies for a
specific kernel. I belive the right way to fix it is to have override
based on kernel and then allow packages to have different sections and
priorities depending on it.

So for it to be done I belive we'd need to add this support on DAK
(AFAIK it lacks it).


> Index: debootstrap.8
> ===================================================================
> --- debootstrap.8	(revision 57816)
> +++ debootstrap.8	(working copy)
> @@ -135,6 +135,30 @@
>  .IP "\fB\-\-debian\-installer\fP"
>  Used for internal purposes by the debian-installer
>  .IP 
> +.
> +.PP
> +The following options should be useful only to porters whose arch has
> +not yet been integrating into the official archive, and who need to
> +download additional packages from a suite called \fIunreleased\fR or
> +similar.
> +.IP
> +.IP "\fB\-\-extra\-mirror EXTRA_MIRROR\fP"
> +Set the mirror for the extra packages, defaults to \fIMIRROR\fR.
> +.IP
> +.IP "\fB\-\-extra\-suite EXTRA_SUITE\fP"
> +Set the suite name to use for the extra packages, defaults to
> +\fIunreleased\fR.
> +.IP
> +.IP "\fB\-\-extra\-include=freebsd\-hackedutils,freebsd\-utils,...\fP"
> +Set the packages to pull from there.
> +.PP
> +Note that all dependencies have to be solved manually: the extra
> +included packages should be autosufficient (in \fIEXTRA_SUITE\fR);
> +and their dependencies in \fISUITE\fR have to be added using
> +\fB\-\-include\fP. A helper script is available in debootstrap's
> +sources, see \fIscripts/porters/\fR).
> +.IP
>  .
>  .PP 

While I understand why those options are required I dislike the idea to
have them at official deboostrap.

I'd much prefer to have it designed to work properly with the kfreebsd
integrated on Debian. This could require that a small "hacked"
debootstrap to be kept around for a while to be used in meanwhile.


        O T A V I O    S A L V A D O R
 E-mail: otavio@debian.org      UIN: 5906116
 GNU/Linux User: 239058     GPG ID: 49A5F855
 Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br
"Microsoft sells you Windows ... Linux gives
 you the whole house."

Reply to: