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

Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror

On Sat 03 Nov 2018 at 12:29:15 -0700, David Christensen wrote:

> On 11/3/18 8:35 AM, Brian wrote:
> > On Fri 02 Nov 2018 at 20:01:59 -0700, David Christensen wrote:
> > 
> > > On 11/2/18 5:17 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > 
> > > My intent was to install just what was on the CD onto a machine in my LAN.
> > > I was unaware that d-i connected to the Internet when I told it not to use a
> > > mirror.  As security.debian.org is not a mirror in the usual sense, perhaps
> > > this kinda sorta makes sense to the Debian developers.  For me, it violates
> > > KISS and the Principle of Least Surprise.  I think the d-i needs to be more
> > > clear about if/ when it intends to connect to the Internet, and obtain
> > > explicit user approval. Which package do I file a bug report against?
> > 
> > You gave it explicit approval when you configured the network.
> I gave the d-i explicit approval to connect to my LAN.  This is not the same
> as approval to connect to the Internet.

At what point in the installation did you do this? A network is a network.
> So, I file a bug report against d-i?

For what? Connecting to other machines?

> > > I view the fact that the d-i couldn't obtain a security update package to be
> > > a defect in the Debian security package distribution chain.  If 'apt-get
> > > update' finds that a security update package is available and the d-i wants
> > > to install that package, then 'apt-get update' must be able to download that
> > > package.  Which package do I file a bug report against?
> > 
> > There is no defect in the security package distribution chain. mutt is
> > not part of the Xfce or standard utilities tasks. The installer had no
> > business attempting to install it.
> So, I file a bug report against d-i?

Not in my opinion.


Reply to: