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

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

Otavio Salvador wrote:
> 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
> [...]

>> 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.

I also think it's because the mount providing package has a too low
priority field.

> [...]

>> 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).

Is there any current need in being able to install old versions of
kfreebsd-*? If so, I think it would be best to generate separate suites
for them which probably could solve the above and otherwise it's just a
matter of changing the priorities of the right package set in
unreleased, no?

> [...]
>> 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.

They are more generally useful though. Everyone who wants to test with
adding extra packages (that are not in Debian proper) to base could use

> 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.

The goal should indeed be proper integration.



Reply to: