Hi, Quoting Helmut Grohne (2022-10-05 20:08:19) > I think this text is already quite good. I am yet wondering about the scope > of support that we mention here. > > 1. You write that we want essential + build-essential. In practice, we > also want things such as apt or systemd. I am wondering whether we > should rephrase this in a less specific way that leaves open some > packages beyond the mentioned set. Vagueness can be avoided by > explaining the purpose: We target packages that are relevant to > setting up an initial build daemon. > > 2. We should likely mention that package upgrade and removal paths can > freely ignore DPKG_ROOT. Maintainer scripts can assume that when > DPKG_ROOT is in effect, it will be an initial installation. Something > along this would have helped Michael in determining whether his > recent changes to init script handling would affect DPKG_ROOT. > > Let me try to extend your text: > > To enable creating a foreign architecture Debian chroot during the early > bootstrap of a new Debian architecture, maintainer scripts and utilities > called by maintainer scripts of packages relevant to setting up a > build daemon, should support operating on a custom chroot directory. > [... keep rest of the text unchanged ...] > Support for `DPKG_ROOT` in code that handles package upgrades or package > removal is not needed. I would replace "relevant to setting up a build daemon" with "relevant to be installed on a build daemon (for example essential and build-essential packages)". We are not interested in the packages that need to set up the build daemon (that could be understood to mean packages like debian-installer or debootstrap) but we are interested in the packages that are installed on such a build daemon. Giving the essential and build-essential package set as examples might further help with understanding what is meant here. I would also replace "is not needed" with "is not required". But those two are just nitpicks. Either version is fine by me and I think it rather comes down to what policy editors think makes sense. Thanks! cheers, josch
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature