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

Bug#979151: live-build: installer_debian-installer script needs to support xz compression



* Roland Clobus [2021-01-03 19:07:32 +0100]:
> Can you provide the command line to 'lb config' that you used to find
> this issue? That would help in reproducing this issue.

The key option is --debian-installer-distribution buster-backports
(and/or --parent-debian-installer-distribution buster-backports ;
I'm using both). This points lb installer_debian-installer to
deb.debian.org/debian/dists/buster-backports/main/debian-installer/binary-amd64/Packages.gz
which doesn't exist. (Patching the script to download Packages.xz and run
unxz instead of gunzip was good enough for me as a quick workaround, though
I guess it may be better to move the decompression logic into Download_file().)

Of course this is not enough: one also needs a d-i image built with a kernel
from buster-backports. I rolled my own (based on the 10.7 point release) and
am also passing --mirror-debian-installer http://localhost . If you're willing
to ignore the ABI mismatch between the kernel and the udebs you could just
use a copy of the dists/buster/main/installer-amd64/ files, renaming the
directory to dists/buster-backports ditto.

Other options include --distribution buster --debian-installer live ,
and I'm pinning linux-image-* linux-headers-* firmware-* wireless-regdb
from buster-backports to priority 600.

In case you wonder, using the daily snapshots of d-i was an exercise in
frustration the past couple of days due to the 5.10 kernel having just
made it into sid. But even after patching installer_debian-installer to
use snapshot.debian.org (this could form the basis for a feature enhancement
to live-build, by the way) I ran into issues with debootstrap. That's why I
chose to stay closer to the buster release.

I see that dists/sid still offers both Packages.gz and Packages.xz. So at
the moment it's only the buster-backports repository that has dropped
support for gz. 


Reply to: