Re: Bug#93612: Support for new archive structure
Le Sat, Apr 14, 2001 at 05:02:10PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe écrivait:
> Having more than one tree means it will be detected more than once and
> that certianly is not desirable, any may cause problems, like it asking
> for the disks in a non-ideal order, or something equally lame.
May or will cause problem ?
I agree that it may be non ideal, however it may also work without much
trouble.
> > And it's what I'd call an exception to the general rule, no ?
>
> What? That you want to make discs that don't work with any apt-cdrom that
> exists? That sounds like a pretty bad thing to do.
What a shame ! We already had bad things like that in the past ... I even
remember that apt was in a upgrade directory and it was advised to install
it before dist-upgrading.
However I agree that we must avoid that whenever possible but only if
apt-cdrom really doesn't work at all.
> It will add them both and it becomes trivial for someone to defeat the
> security mechanisms.
Why ?
> The insecure one must be ignored for things to work
> correctly.
That sounds ok to me. I don't see a problem here.
> I *really* don't see why this is necessary. How is writing:
>
> deb file:/.../ woody-secured main
>
> any better than writing
>
> deb-partial file:/.../ woody main
>
> ?
You don't see the point ? With what aj proposed, the standard directory
uses the standard Packages which works ok with all old tools (including
file URI with apt, but also dselect and so on) and the people who
requires a secured set of files will use woody-secured.
BTW, people using apt-cdrom will automatically use verified packages.
> Even with this scheme you still need to have the 'deb-partial' feature!
> Consider with AJ's case that you want to use security, and file/http
> URI's, you *still* need to have the original release file, the complete
True, however people willing security over a loopbak mount are silly.
The main point was not about having security on a file URI but rather
about not breaking what already existed.
> All this proposal does is break apt-cdrom, in a way that I probably can't
> fix, and that makes it far worse than everything else that has been
> proposed!
No, it's your turn to take a pill. :)
Anyway I already commited the code to debian-cd CVS, someone please burn a
CD with this new tree and check if apt-cdrom does really as bad as Jason says.
> Step back and look at why you are doing this - the only reason is so that
> people using old APTs can continue to use file: URIs and loopback mounts
It's a bit over exagerated, it's also for people not using apt. :)
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog -+- http://strasbourg.linuxfr.org/~raphael/
Le bouche à oreille du Net : http://www.beetell.com
Naviguez sans se fatiguer à chercher : http://www.deenoo.com
Formation Linux et logiciel libre : http://www.logidee.com
Reply to: