Re: Woody release?
On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 02:07:11PM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> Jeff: I think you should add
>
> deb <your_mirror>/debian unstable main/debian-installer
>
> to your sources.list to make turtle notice that those things are not
> actually "missing" anymore.
It doesn't work this way in turtle. Turtle has to pick up the appropriate
Packages file of this area and merge it into its database.
But I dispute the necessity and appropriateness of this special area for the
debian-installer: There is no consistent way to determine how ssuch
subdirectories are named for inclusion. It seems to be an ad hoc hack to
avoid policy conflicts and front end improvements.
In short, I think that debian-installer packages should be in the regular
archive, maybe in a "installer" section, or flagged some way to not present
them in front ends.
Adding the possibility of multiple Sources/Packages files is a good feature
for other reasons (build main/contrib and/or non-us in a single turtle
group), but I don't want to hack this in just to work around a bad ad hoc
feature.
> ash and busybox are not turtle'd yet, but could work out of the box.
> Jeff?
ash needs pmake, and may have a PATH_MAX issue. Maybe it is already
reported and/or incorporated?
busybox might need some hacks for mount etc?
Or do you mean you already tested them? I think GLenn was building busybox
in the past.
> Anything coming from kernel-image-di is of no use to us, that includes
> kernel-image-* and a lot of *-modules-* udebs. We'd have to provide
> gnumach and hurd udebs, though.
Uh :)
Thanks,
Marcus
--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org brinkmd@debian.org
Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org marcus@gnu.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de
http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de
Reply to: