On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 06:05:59AM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > For reasons I explained in #767999, hacking debootstrap to configure > base-passwd and base-files in a specific order is neither sufficient nor > necessary. It does work around the problem for those running debootstrap > from fully upgraded unstable (and if it was uploaded to stable, wheezy) > but doesn't help in any other use cases.
I never imagined to find so much bias in a single email message. "hacking debootstrap": It's not hacking, it's fixing a bug. In fact, the fix is obvious, reasonable and clean. "is not necessary". Yes, it is necessary, because base-passwd is essential and base-files is just using a feature of an essential package, namely chown and default Debian system users, as does dpkg and quite a few other essential packages in their postinst. And once that this necessary thing is done, the problem will disappear, so it's sufficient as well. "It does work around the problem". No, it actually fixes the problem. The problem is that base-files uses the feature of an essential package before the essential package is ready, but that's precisely what debootstrap is supposed to do: ensuring that everything works by breaking the cycles. "but doesn't help in any other use cases". Sure. It only fixes the problem in stable, testing and unstable. Ok, this would leave oldstable and non Debian systems, but those will always be able to use the version in stable. debootstrap is written to be portable and only needs wget to work. (Hmm. And people still wonder why this issue makes me to be upset) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141105164549.ga9...@cantor.unex.es
