Re: Bug#50284: a better apt configuration method
Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> Largely this is what apt-cdrom is for, it is the intended means for
> setting up APT for CD installation. All other people are likely best
> served by using the default configuration until they are able to change it
> to a suitable site.
I disagree. I don't think people in australia are best served by downloading
from http.us.debian.org.
> > - Scanning cd's with apt-cdrom, including multiple cd's.
> > - with some basic autodetection done, so the new user
> > who has just installed need only insert their cd, run the
> > setup program, and everything will just work.
>
> What is your basic autodetection? Guessing from what your script does this
> is using /dev/cdrom - this isn't going to work. APT requires a correct
> fstab entry to work correctly, which the new installer is going to have to
> create. Running apt-cdrom with --no-mount is the worst possible thing you
> can do in this situation.
How so?
> > - Verification that each new added source works, before committing
> > them to sources.list.
>
> The way you do this is an extremely bad scheme.. If a pre-existing entry
> is down then all new entries you try to add will mysteriosly fail!
That's true. Hardly mysteriosly though, since you get the error message.
> I also note that you are not using the apt-config mechanism to read file
> and binary locations.
Wasn't aware of it. I suppose I can use it to get the location of apt.conf,
that's the only useful information I see it providing for this program.
> > To test it out, you need to put the 2 files I have attached to this
> > bug report in /usr/lib/dpkg/methods/apt/ and make
> > /usr/lib/dpkg/methods/apt/setup executable.
>
> Your mime scheme didn't preserve filenames so I called one aptconf and the
> other aptconf.templates and threw them in /tmp for testing..
As I said (I think), you need to have debconf 0.2.33 or above.
> It runs, but
> I think it screwed up around 5 times just while I was futzing around, I
> never did get it to load the mirror list [yes I changed the location in
> the script] and it insisted in writing invalid urls!
Can you provide details?
I've been using and testing the script for about a month now and have seen
no problems.
> I understand there are lots of minor consistency problems with this file
> that nobody is working on fixing, not to mention the fact that nobody has
> checked any of those mirrors for life. If an automated tool is going to
> use this file it then that needs fixing.
I thought you were maintaining that file? Yes, it has consitency problems,
like using many different names for the same country.
--
see shy jo
Reply to: