On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 12:52:18PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote: > On Tuesday 13 November 2007, Colin Watson wrote: > > +1 also, > > Cool. I've just committed the changes I had prepared (and tested). > I'd very much appreciate a review of these changes.
Looks fine to me. > One thing that is not completely nice is that bootstrap-base now installs a > file in /usr/lib/debootstrap/. I thought about putting it elsewhere, but > think the current location is defensible as well with the rationale that it > provides a missing component of debootstrap. It's a minor layering violation, but I think it's OK here. Perhaps add a comment to debootstrap that the pkgdetails API needs to be kept in sync with base-installer, so that we don't forget in future. > > except I'd do it by adding: > > elif type udpkg >/dev/null 2>&1 && udpkg --print-architecture > > >/dev/null 2>&1; then ARCH=`udpkg --print-architecture` > > > > ... to debootstrap rather than passing the architecture in from > > base-installer. > > Hmmm. Why? Regularity: debootstrap already does the same thing with dpkg. > We also control other (IMO similar) parameters from base-installer and your > suggestion adds an (admittedly light) dependency on D-I internals to > debootstrap. The other parameters base-installer passes are ones that debootstrap can't easily figure out for itself. I think 'udpkg --print-architecture' is a stable enough interface that it's OK to use it if available. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
