Bug#779313: Sid installer broken - wrong branch in apt sources.list
On Sat, 2015-02-28 at 12:25 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> jnqnfe <jnqnfe@gmail.com> (2015-02-28):
> > On Fri, 2015-02-27 at 22:26 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > > > Right, so to get an installer that will work correctly as a Sid
> > > > installer, you have to build a copy as such. This is what I assumed
> > > > would be the case when I filed the bug.
> > >
> > > Why don't you set the variable(s) you want or need in your bootloader?
> >
> > Because you didn't tell me that I can!
> >
> > Instead of spending a load of time researching how to tell d-i what dist
> > to install, I took the opportunity to just ask you. You provided info on
> > how to build my own copy of d-i with the dist changed to the version
> > needed. Quite reasonably I believed this therefore was the only way to
> > do it, since you didn't tell me otherwise, and hence came my assertion
> > that a copy of d-i pre-built with 'sid'/'unstable' specified was needed.
>
> It's not really reasonable to expect us to detail everything d-i can do,
> and how, in all of our answers to bug reports. Also, you were asking “So
> how is that done exactly?”, which I answered. You didn't ask how to pick
> an option which isn't the default one…
I'm not expecting you to go into any kind of thorough detail; it's
hardly a big deal for you to have added "alternatively you can control
what dist a pre-built d-i installs via preseeding, see the manual which
explains how".
I asked "So how is that done exactly?" in response to you stating "d-i
installs a jessie system by default; if you want sid, you have to tell
that to d-i". You responded to that with some detail regarding one way
to do it, with no hint that there was any other way. Surely you can
understand how that might be misleading.
I recognise that you said "by default" a couple of times, but it
actually wasn't entirely clear to me what you meant by that. I did not
know whether or not it was possible to control a pre-built d-i in this
respect, and when you responded to tell me how to control it, the lack
of mention of any such method didn't help.
However, I very deliberately started my response to this the way I did
("Right, so to..blah blah"), making clear that what I understood from
your response was that there was only this one way to control this
aspect of d-i, and thus that the rest of my response was based on that
premise. Instead of spending time unnecessarily ripping apart that
email, you could have recognised this right at the start, and responded
by simply informing me that there are actually alternative options. You
did mention another method directly in response to my incorrect premise,
but did so by asking why don't I use a method that I didn't even know is
available to me (I happened to know about preseeding, but I had no idea
that the dist installed could be controlled through it).
> > If you'd briefly laid out all the various options available to me in
> > your previous reply (or at least just said that it can be done with
> > preseeding and directed me to the manual), this discussion would have
> > taken a much different path.
>
> Well, you started by telling us how broken d-i was instead of detailing
> your usecase in the first place. Since I'm not gifted with clairvoyance,
> I stuck to answering questions and challenging incorrect statements.
That's not fair. I did not start at all by "telling us how broken d-i
was", I simply described a problem that I had observed. Initially I was
only going to post it as a discussion in the list, but I had a feeling
that perhaps there might be a bug responsible for this and went with a
bug report instead; turns out that I was wrong about that, but at no
point was I having a go about how broken d-i was/is. You've taken things
the wrong way if you though that was what I was doing.
I deliberately left out any details regarding this affecting users of
live-build because I felt it completely irrelevant to add it, and really
I still feel the same. Not understanding my usecase, you chose to point
me to one particular solution, instead of telling me what my options
were, and then when I made it clear that my understanding was that the
solution you described was the only one and obviously the rest of that
email was based off of that premise, you choose to rip it all apart
instead of just addressing that incorrect premise.
Look, I really don't want to fall out over all of this. What's done is
done, I hope we can work better together in future. :)
Reply to: