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

Re: Bug#767999: base-files: fails to install with pre-jessie debootstrap



Hello Guillem, All,

First of all thanks to everyone for the efforts to fix these problems. It seems
we've now got fixes in place both in (c)debootstrap and base-passwd, so
hopefully we're fine for the next few releases... :-)

On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 17:38:06 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-11-07 at 08:30:39 +0000, Michael Tautschnig wrote:
[...]
> > I do agree with all the dpkg reasoning and in a way I'm grateful that dpkg made
> > this bug surface. But really there shouldn't be any such dependency on the order
> > of configuration of base-files and base-passwd.
> 
> There needs to be one, and that's part of the problem of bootstrapping
> a system. I agree with Santiago that adding an implicit Depends
> completely defeats the point of Essential, and that's a wrong fix.
> 

I don't quite see why we would necessarily need a dependency between the two,
and the change to base-passwd seems to prove this. (But I understand that
explicitly adding a dependency would not be a good idea.)

[...]
> ISTR there was in the past discussions (AFAIR either in d-d or a dpkg
> bug) about trying to move the bootstrapping information into packages
> in a bootstrap maintscript or similar. Those would need to be run from
> outside the chroot, so that we are not back to the problem of implicit
> assumptions and ordering though. And the expectations on the external
> environment would need to be specified, for example assuming just POSIX
> utilities.
> 

I suppose it was part of those discussions (I wouldn't recall having followed
them) that it is not possible to sort out these problems using preinst scripts.

> *That* would be a proper fix to the problem of the implicit ordering,
> would also be a generic solution independent of the distribution or
> derivative, or current set of packages, and we might be able to have
> (possibly) a more generic debootstrap. I can try to draft something
> up if people are interested in this for jessie+1.
> 

While obviously implicit constraints are worse than explicit ones, having no
ordering constraints would seem even better?! I suppose this is infeasible for
certain packages, so for now I'll just enjoy that the count has been reduced by
one.

Thanks again everyone for the efforts,
Michael

Attachment: pgpdfZjWaXSWX.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: