Re: Bug#562143: apt is no longer in base system created by debootstrap?
On Sunday 27 December 2009, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 01:39:28PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> > From that perspective apt should be tagged Build-Essential. Simply
> > because without apt you don't have a working build system.
>
> apt is not and never was needed to build a package and therefor is
> not build essential. The buildds never required apt to be in the
> chroots until recently. Having apt in the chroot however has
> always been handy.
Right, and existing tools depend on the fact that it has always been tagged
Build-Essential. You can argue about changing that, but if you do you will
also need to agree on a transition period.
Because it is completely valid to e.g. have use Lenny's cowbuilder for a
sid build environment, the current change breaks those tools. Modifying
the tools in unstable will only fix the issue for people already running
unstable or testing.
IMO the correct action for now is to revert the changes. Then agree on how
things should look in the future and give the relevant packages notice
(via BRs and/or d-d-a) so they can adjust for Squeeze. Then when Sqeeze
has been released for some time, the Build-Essential tags could be
changed.
> The debootstrap buildd variant should probably
> add that, just like it should probably add sudo and/or fakeroot and
> debfoster. It's not something that belongs in the Packages file.
Personally I think adding apt in debootstrap would be OK (especially as the
minbase variant also includes apt). However, any other tools should IMO be
installed in the chroot by the tools that require them, not by
debootstrap.
> I'm also not sure why pbuilder, cowbuilder or whatever should use the
> "buildd" variant, they're not buildds.
Probably because the "buildd" variant is a natural fit for creating package
build environments. I see no reason why it should be limited to only
official buildds.
> Maybe debootstrap needs a build-essential variant and they should use
> that and add the packages that they need.
I don't see any need for an extra variant in debootstrap. I agree with the
last part of the sentence.
Cheers,
FJP
Reply to: