Santiago Vila <email@example.com> (2014-11-07): > On Fri, 7 Nov 2014, Michael Tautschnig wrote: > > > To stick with Santiago's earlier wording, we are now shooting the next > > messenger (this time dpkg, after first working hard against base-files). > > Indeed. I would not like to see dpkg as the next "victim" of this problem. > > Being able to bootstrap jessie from wheezy is highly desirable, but > IMHO not something that should prevent us from fixing bugs in dpkg > when we could just apply the short and simple fix to the wheezy > version of debootstrap: > > - x_core_install base-files base-passwd > + x_core_install base-passwd > + x_core_install base-files Can we please stop the drama here? This isn't about shooting anyone. I meant to pinpoint the exact change which triggered the failure to debootstrap jessie, and I did. Then Guillem shared his point of view as a dpkg maintainer, which I'm fine with: dpkg's change was right, debootstrap's expectations weren't. Working around the wrong expectations in dpkg for the moment means sid can be fixed in hours or days, ditto for jessie. Fixing debootstrap's expectations in wheezy means we get a longterm fix (for when dpkg switches back to the current, correct behaviour). But this can't happen *immediately* as I already explained in an earlier mail, because of the need for p-u and a point release. As far as I can tell nothing speaks against having both dpkg patched and debootstrap fixed. And that's the current plan. Mraw, KiBi.
Description: Digital signature