Re: RFC: "autobuilder" pseudo-package
Holger Levsen <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Tuesday 25 September 2007 12:25, Simon Richter wrote:
>> inspired by the "how to detect if inside a buildd chroot" thread: would
>> it make sense to have an (empty) package "autobuilder" that all packages
>> that are not supposed to be installed on autobuilders (daemons, packages
>> requiring interactive configuration, ...) can conflict against?
> Interactive configuration must be done via debconf by now.
> And not wanting to start daemon can have other reasons than autobuilders, eg.
> eg. chroots, fai's nfsroot, piuparts... so "autobuilder" is not a good name.
I also would not make it empty but have it come with a policy-rc.d
script that returns 101. That way it nicely disables all daemons for
you. Also you could have some debconf configuration to set the
hostname and prompts to reflect it is a chroot.