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

Re: sid chroot

> Thank you Ricardo,
> That did the trick.
> However, now i wander whether would be appropriate to bring up this 
> inconsistency between the two tools. For instance the Debian Reference 
> document section states:
> A chroot Debian environment can easily be created by the debootstrap 
> command in Sarge. For post-Sarge distributions, you may use cdebootstrap 
> command instead with appropriate option. For example, to create a Sid 
> chroot on /sid-root while having fast Internet access:
> However, on Etch cdebootstrap seems to fail while debootstrap works fine.

I think it is known that debootstrap is better than cdebootstrap. For
example, here is a quote from a recent email on debian-live:[0]

"in general, you should always prefere debootstrap over cdebootstrap:
debootstrap turned out to be better maintained, and it is the official
tool of debian, also used by debian-installer, and it is slightly
faster (although it's written in shell and cdebootstrap is C).

second, debootstrap got updated in the first etch point release
4.0r1) and is thus recent enough to build a lenny or sid live system."

0. http://lists.debian.org/debian-live/2008/08/msg00249.html

Personally I have used debootstrap without a problem a couple of
times so I feel confident in its quality. I have never used
> if you think that this is important enough to be brought up then whom 
> shall i address?

You may want to file a bug against cdebootstrap.


Reply to: