Hello, Holger Wansing <hwans...@mailbox.org> (2024-12-19): > I just noticed that many d-i packages currently get a lintian error > "aliased-location", complaining about binaries in locations, which are > now under the concept of usrmerge (aka /bin, /sbin and /lib). > > Since udebs are sometimes a little bit different from "normal" Debian > packages, I would like to ask, if this is an issue for these packages > or not.
Important topics: - does the package build? - does it get accepted when it reaches the archive? - is the runtime within d-i OK? If you get a triple yes, the rest doesn't matter. > Should we change this, or is the lintian error a false-positive? At this point, I don't know, and I don't want to know. This move has been a HUGE mess for MANY years. And if we don't run into troubles as it is, then I don't see a need to change anything. If that doesn't lead to an autoreject, it's perfectly fine to ignore those errors, and not to add any overrides. It's best to think about the topic first, then decide whether we need/want to do something on the udeb side, get lintian to skip those checks on udebs, and/or use overrides. (My gut feeling would be we should have udebs close to their counterpart debs, but should it happen right now? Absolutely not. :)) > And do we want to change it *now*? Even if we needed, or wanted, to do anything about that, it would make sense to get everything at the same time, not one package here and one other package there. Ideally that kind of change should get discussed on the list first, and if there's an agreement about needing/wanting to implement the changes vs. the associated risks, then we can talk about a timetable and proceed. So thank you very much for starting this thread, that's perfect. > Pascal 'pham' already mentioned, that d-i under trixie has merged-usr > in initrd.gz, but I want to make sure, before pushing changes to > several d-i packages, thus this mail... > > See for example > https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/grub-installer/-/merge_requests/23 > https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/anna/-/merge_requests/5 > > Testing of images with such changes did not show any issues. That's a useful datapoint, thanks for that as well. Over the past few weeks I've spotted a number of issues that'd be blockers for a release, and most if not all of them have been fixed in the last few days. If you want to include more l10n changes at this point that's still fine, but delaying other code changes would have my preference at this point. I'll have to check a few more things before mailing the usual reminder to dda@ about freezing udeb-producing packages temporarily, check with the images team, and wade through the website and other places to prepare for Trixie Alpha 1. (There's some bit of uncertainty regarding the unshare thing on the buildd side — I'm not sure I looked into the proper puppet bits — but we'll see what happens when src:debian-installer gets uploaded next time.) Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois (k...@debian.org) <https://debamax.com/> D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
