Re: Proposed changes to sbuild and debootstrap
On Sun, 29 Nov 2020 at 20:33:22 +0100, RhineDevil wrote:
> I ask the teams responsible for sbuild and debootstrap development
> permission to integrate these changes
If you have made changes to sbuild and debootstrap and you want those
changes to be merged, the way to make that happen is to open bug reports
or merge requests with the specific patches/commits that you want applied,
so that their maintainers can review those changes and either merge them
as-is, merge them with changes, or ask you for improvements.
> A viable solution for achieving this may be using an optional
> -f/--flavour parameter in sbuild/debootstrap components who do not
> interact with repos
If I saw "flavour" in debootstrap help, I'd expect it to be something
similar to --variant or maybe --merged-usr - choosing between different
forms for a chroot in a way that is "less important" than the suite.
If you mean the difference between Debian, Devuan, Ubuntu, Tanglu and
similar OS distributions, dpkg refers to them as *vendors* (as in the
dpkg-vendor tool) and I think that might be the best term to use to refer
to them. That's the term I use in <https://salsa.debian.org/smcv/vectis>,
for example.
That rename would also avoid having to choose whether to use the en_GB
or en_US spelling of flavour/flavor :-)
The other obvious name would be "distribution", but that's awkward for
historical reasons, because Debian sometimes uses "distribution" to mean
what we now call a suite or codename, like stable or buster (for example
the dists directory in apt archives refers to this meaning).
smcv
Reply to: