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

Re: Bug#964248: marked as done (base-installer: Pass "--extra-suites=unreleased" to debootstrap on ports arches)

John Paul Adrian Glaubitz, le lun. 17 août 2020 10:17:24 +0200, a ecrit:
> On 8/17/20 1:06 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> >> I checked the patch and it enables "unreleased" unconditionally. I'm
> >> not sure whether that's a good idea.
> > 
> > I don't think we really have a better choice: writing yet another arch
> > list looks dirty, and trying whether the suite is available is probably
> > quite complex to implement.
> ... I don't quite understand why "unreleased" is supposed to be part of the
> base installation.

For ports architectures, it often is, because the sid archive does not
contain various packages that ports need.

> "unreleased" is not a regular package archive and all
> packages in there are usually only added temporarily.

AFAIK that's not what ports' daily life really is.

> Does Debian Hurd require packages from "unreleased" for it's base system?

The Hurd needs netdde from there. It happens that the hurd package
itself is still in sid but that's only by luck because there's the
arch:all hurd-doc package.

But that's far from being specific to the Hurd. Various ports have
various requirements such as bootloaders.

> Since "unreleased" is not properly maintained due to the fact that all
> packages there are built and uploaded manually, I rather prefer them not
> to be enabled by default, especially not for the base system.

They are uploaded manually by the porters themselves. They are
responsible for what they upload there, so I don't see why it would
be harmful? On the contrary, it provides flexibility for fixing
installability without having to wait for sid to have fixes uploaded.


Reply to: