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

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

Luk Claes <luk@debian.org> writes:

> Otavio Salvador wrote:


>> 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?

I belive that there's no need to support backward compatibility since it
is not officially supported yet.

I just didn't get where those suites are suppose to be done. Do you mean
a suite script(1) at debootstrap or a specific suite at DAK(2)?

In both cases I disagree, bellow I detail why:

 1) doing a specific suite for debootstrap surely makes sense as a
 meanwhile solution but I'd much prefer to have it properly fixed at
 override side.

 2) I belive it could be done in DAK in override layers; a common one
 and a specific one for each kernel that override the value for it. In
 DAK POV it would look like a arch specific override and I see no
 problem in this approuch for the problem. Obviously, DAK people would
 need to comment on this if we really thing this is the way to go.

>>> 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
>>>  .SH "EXAMPLE"
>>>  .
>>>  .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
> them.

To make easy for us to decide about it all, it would be nice if Luca
could split the patch in two. One adding the
--extra-{mirror,suite,include} options and another with freebsd
specifics. Could you (Luca) take a look and split it for us?



        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: