John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de> (2020-04-05): > On 3/28/20 5:16 PM, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > > John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de> (2020-03-17): > >> I think enabling vi in the busybox configuration is actually the best > >> approach to address this problem as this way we continue to ship vi > >> with debian-installer and at the same time get rid of the vim > >> dependency which is regularly causing headaches when building > >> debian-installer images for Debian Ports. > > > > Can you expand on that? > > src:vim is regularly failing to build from source, even on release > architectures and I think that this is rather unfortunate for packages > that are required for even a minimal Debian installation. > > Just the latest upload of src:vim is failing on ppc64el again: > > > https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=vim&suite=sid > > https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=vim&arch=ppc64el
In other words, as I suspected, this has nothing to do with building debian-installer images. > > I'm not aware of vi playing any part in Debian Installer (there's > > nano instead) but maybe I've been missing some piece of information > > during all those years? > > vim-tiny is always installed when debootstrap installs a minimal > Debian system and vim-tiny is built from src:vim. > > My suggestion would be to replace the problematic vim-tiny with the > less problematic vile: > > > https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=vile&suite=sid > > > Digging a bit more in the mail you pointed to (and its references…), > > it seems you might be referring to the “Priority: important” field for > > vim-tiny. While this is indeed used in Debian Installer through > > debootstrap(-udeb), the former is not depending on anything provided > > by vim-tiny. We've had a number of packages having their priorities > > changed over the last release cycle(s), mainly initiated by Ansgar. I > > don't think vim-tiny is special here, and if the consensus is that it > > should no longer be “Priority: important”, I'm not immediately seeing > > reasons for the installer team to object. > > I just want to avoid debian-installer to be dependent on a package > that has regularly quality issues and rather replace it with a simple > VI clone which will hopefully also take away pressure from the > maintainer of src:vim since he can remove vim-tiny (which he actually > wants to) and not bother about debootstrap or debian-installer if the > package FTBFS in unstable again. In other words, this is not related to debootstrap or debian-installer, but to what debootstrap pulls from the archive, which is controlled by priorities, that are only remotely overseen by the d-i team when the FTP masters are asked to change them (I don't remember NACKing any of them, just a vague recollection of asking to postpone one so that we could get something adjusted before it hit the archive). Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois (k...@debian.org) <https://debamax.com/> D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
