Bug#865470: include debian-ports-archive-keyring on non released architectures
Hi,
Thank you for your review of the patch and sorry for my late answer.
Le samedi 24 juin à 11h 14mn 37s (+0200), John Paul Adrian Glaubitz a écrit :
> On 06/21/2017 09:15 PM, jhcha54008 wrote:
> > +## Port architectures need their archive keyring
> > +UNRELEASED_PORT_ARCHITECTURES=alpha hppa hurd-i386 m68k ppc64 powerpcspe sh4 sparc64 x32
> > +ifneq (,$(filter $(UNRELEASED_PORT_ARCHITECTURES),$(ARCHES)))
> > +export BASE_INCLUDE := $(BASEDIR)/data/base_include_port_architectures $(BASE_INCLUDE)
> > +endif
> > +
>
> I was just reviewing your patch and then I realized that Steve already merged it.
>
> There is one issue that I found which is that you added "hurd-i386" to the list
> above. However, hurd-i386 is not using the Ports FTP server but the official
> FTP servers. Hence, we do not need to include it in this list as it doesn't need
> the Debian Ports keyring. There are remnants of hurd-i386 on the Debian Ports
> FTP server, but those files are outdated and I have already asked Aurelien Jarno
> to remove them.
I was not aware of all the intricacies of the hurd-i386 repositories.
Thank you for the clarification and the correction.
>
> > - BINCLUDE=`[ -n "$(BASE_INCLUDE)" ] && cat $(BASE_INCLUDE) | tr "\n" "," | sed 's!,$$!!g'`; \
> > + BINCLUDE=`[ -n "$(BASE_INCLUDE)" ] && cat $(BASE_INCLUDE) | sort -u | tr "\n" "," | sed 's!,$$!!g'`; \
>
> I'm not sure I understand why you added the additional "sort -u" here. Is the order
> of packages important? Did you get an error when building a CD without it?
>
Indeed, that should not be necessary. Nowadays, debootstrap removes
duplicates. The reason was to avoid including debian-ports-archive-keyring
twice - in case BASE_INCLUDE is set by the user and includes
debian-ports-archive-keyring.
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/data/base_include_port_architectures
> > @@ -0,0 +1 @@
> > +debian-ports-archive-keyring
>
> I think that should be "base_include_ports_architectures" with an "s", same above.
>
I was unsure about the total number of 's'. Thank you for the correction.
Regards,
JH Chatenet
Reply to: