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

Bug#774378: Ubuntu firmware inclusion



Package: live-build
Version: 4.0.4-1
Severity: important

The installer_debian-installer and chroot_firmware scripts both download a Contents-[arch].gz file in order to get a list of firmware packages to then download and include. The URL compiled for download of the contents file is {MIRROR}/dists/{DIST}/{ARCHIVE_AREA}/Contents-{ARCH}.gz.

This works fine for Debian and progress-linux builds, but is wrong for Ubuntu. Ubuntu mirrors do not keep such contents files under archive area directories, they only include a single copy in the directory above ({MIRROR}/dists/{DIST}/Contents-{ARCH}.gz).

Going back over the git history, a commit (11d97a6a5f17fe2c500a798aa4a32fa6889e409c) was added in v3.0_a68-1 to take exactly this into account, however, less than a month later another commit (ca42266824b4b4ccd87243b90867487ba287181b) in v3.0_b1-1 removes this, stating:

"Dropping ubuntu guards on firmware selection code, we're not enabling firmware inclusion in ubuntu mode anyway.
Also, we're not keeping this as ubuntu should just update their archive structure for content files to match debian. Not worth keeping temporary extra turns just for ubuntu."

Not having tested this, either Ubuntu builds would fail, or the download would simply fail, resulting only in no firmware packages being included.

However, my bug #718225 solution (secure wget downloads) which is almost complete, isn't designed to accept such failure, Ubuntu builds would definitely fail on failing to download these files. I am not certain how to proceed on this.

I have no idea whether maintainer reached out to Ubuntu to point out the disparity in archive layouts and ask for it to be changed when dropping support, but the fact is that two years later, their layout is still the same. I will reach out to their mailing list myself in a moment, but I'm not too hopeful that it will have any effect.

The required modifications in LB to support their layout is actually pretty small, and considering the number of other similar hacks and such throughout the rest of the code, I was a little surprised to actually see and read the commit removing this support.

Daniel, what are your feelings on this currently? Should their layout just be accepted, and a hack added back in? If not then a hack will be needed anyway to allow the script to continue rather than fail when using my new bug #718225 solution...

Reply to: