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

Re: Two suggestions for woody release



On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 02:48:08PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net> writes:

> > Since apt is not Debian-specific, it's reasonable to not want a
> > Debian-specific preferences file shipped by default.  Rather, the file 
> > should probably be provided by some other component of the Debian 
> > installer, IMHO.  I don't know which package this would be, however.

> I don't have any particular reason to say what package it should be
> in.  My complaint about the status quo is relevent, however, for as
> long as nobody thinks it belongs in *their* part of the system.

> The apt maintainer thinks it should not be in the apt package.

> If it is added only to the Debian installer, then people who upgrade
> (rather than reinstall) will probably never get it, and that's not
> adequate.

Having this done automatically on upgrade is touchy; there may be
non-Debian repositories in the user's sources.list already, and adding a 
preferences file on top of that could break existing configs.  At best, 
this would have to be done with the user's explicit consent; at worst, 
we'll find that no maintainer of an existing package of sufficient 
priority considers this an appropriate fit for his/her package.

A quick scan of all Priority: required and Essential: yes packages 
suggests to me that the only other existing package suitable for this 
would be base-files.  Santiago, are you averse to the idea of providing 
a default /etc/apt/preferences as part of this package?

I think anyone who is doing an upgrade of an existing potato machine can 
be trusted to figure sources.list out well enough to add their own 
references to testing & unstable.

As for fresh installs, it would be easy to make base-config add
multiple sources.list entries (woody,testing,unstable) for each apt
source.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgp0ZSVnCvzdt.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: