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

Re: Inconsistent handling of sourceless packages in main

On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 12:34:21PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Jeroen van Wolffelaar <jeroen@wolffelaar.nl> writes:
> > The above is a bit sparce on details of what exactly is the issue here.
> > debian-installer builds use udeb's, and work is underway to not only
> > keep those udeb's used last, but the udeb's for all d-i builds on the
> > mirror network. If a udeb or deb is on the mirrors, the corresponding
> > source is too, that's already ensured.
> How will you do that? Will that include the files copied from the
> build system into the D-I images? Can the same mechanism be used for
> ia32-libs and similar?

Nothing decided yet, thinking about the raw-installer upload hook to do
something terribly d-i specific to keep all the needed udeb's for the
installed d-i images around in some special 'fake' suite.
> > So what is exactly the problem? Are you referring to libraries taken
> > from regular .deb's, mangled and used in the initrd's? That's indeed a
> > point, but not (much) different from the static linking issue we're
> > already facing with any normal library in Debian -- there is a
> > copy-on-compile, so the library that was staticly linked to, might move
> > on and gain new source lines/drop them.
> The point is that anything using prebuild binaries to build debs can
> end up without source.
> I previously mentioned the D-I images, ia32-libs and kernel-images /
> modules. Now you added static libs to it.
> Kernel-source takes great care to preserve old sources in new uploads
> so they are fine, D-I just becomes sourcesless and ia32-libs has to
> carry all sources and debs it uses insite its tar.gz.
> If you are working on something to fix this for D-I then please share
> some details and hopefully this is general enough to be used for more
> than just D-I.

Quite likely not. d-i can also really diverge from the archive, while
for other stuff, this shouldn't happen, and also, a rebuild should
always be harmless and not change functionality -- while a d-i rebuild
with uptodate udeb's really *can* change functionality in a very
significant way. All above mentioned cases are quite unique, in fact...


Jeroen van Wolffelaar
Jeroen@wolffelaar.nl (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)

Reply to: