Re: [PATCH] better handling of non-free CDs
Le Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 11:23:51AM +0100, Steve McIntyre écrivait:
> I've hacked the add_package function to just ignore non-free packages
> in the dependency lists unless we're onto the later CDs containing
> only non-free. Contrib packages therefore will be dropped into place
> just as normal.
Yes that's the problem. :) If you build a CD set with NONFREE and
EXTRANONFREE contrib packages will be put on the first 2 binary CDs but
they'll depend on packages that are on CD 4. We loose the fact that a
package in CD X has all its dependencies on CD 1..X.
What we could probably do, is always build the 3 first CD as usual with
NONFREE unset, but have an extra target "extranonfree-list" in the
Makefile that would do what is required (ie include non-free package
and contrib packages that have not been included before).
I really think that we should be able to add this feature without
modifying actual tools/{cd2src,list2cds} ...
> >- I want that we keep the possibility to merge main & non-free on the same
> > CDs.
>
> That's the problem - I want to keep main and non-free entirely
> separate, for logistical reasons. Then I don't have to keep so many
> images around to cope with the different options. If you look at the
> patch, there's a simple config change - set $extranonfree in list2cds
> if you want it split. If you leave it set to 0 then behaviour should
> be almost identical to before. I haven't plumbed it through yet, but
> I'm going to add it as another variable in CONF.sh.
Yes I know what you want, and i've seen the variable but the only thing i
can tell you is that i'm not sure that you're doing the same than before
since you changed the code even if extranonfree = 0 ...
I want that we can generate images like you proposed but I also want to be
able to merge everything. It may be possible that for woody we'll need 4
binary CD and there may be enough free space on CD4 for non-free without
requiring CD5 ...
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog -+- http://strasbourg.linuxfr.org/~raphael/
Reply to: