On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 07:31:07PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Mittwoch, 8. Mai 2013, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > Instead any > > Ubuntu release that doesn't have a specific config should fall back to > > a default ubuntu config. > > > > Similary any Debian release should have a fallback to a default Debian > > config. > > so when debootstrap is being called to debootstrap "bonkers", how should it > know whether thats the new Debian or Ubuntu release name?
http://ftp.debian.org/debian/dists/jessie/Release Origin: Debian Label: Debian Suite: testing Codename: jessie Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 08:24:22 UTC Valid-Until: Thu, 23 May 2013 08:24:22 UTC Architectures: amd64 armel armhf i386 ia64 kfreebsd-amd64 kfreebsd-i386 mips mipsel powerpc s390 s390x sparc Components: main contrib non-free Description: Debian x.y Testing distribution - Not Released ... http://de.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/quantal/Release Origin: Ubuntu Label: Ubuntu Suite: quantal Version: 12.10 Codename: quantal Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 7:23:38 UTC Architectures: amd64 armel armhf i386 powerpc Components: main restricted universe multiverse Description: Ubuntu Quantal 12.10 ... The origin seems like a good indicator. At least for the known major players. Ideal would be a vendor chain listing all the vendors the repository is derived from recursively. So Debian would have "Vendors: Debian" and Ubuntu "Vendors: Ubuntu, Debian". Something based on Ubuntu would then have "Vendors: FooBar, Ubuntu, Debian" and so on. That way (c)debootstrap could go down the vendors chain until it has a config and then hope that works. MfG Goswin PS: dpkg already has the notion of vendors, this just needs to be added to the repositories meta information somehow. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130516092515.GA2181@frosties
