Luk Claes <l...@debian.org> writes:
> Otavio Salvador wrote:
[...]
>> This looks to be the wrong way to fix missing dependencies for a
>> specific kernel. I belive the right way to fix it is to have override
>> based on kernel and then allow packages to have different sections and
>> priorities depending on it.
>>
>> So for it to be done I belive we'd need to add this support on DAK
>> (AFAIK it lacks it).
>
> Is there any current need in being able to install old versions of
> kfreebsd-*? If so, I think it would be best to generate separate suites
> for them which probably could solve the above and otherwise it's just a
> matter of changing the priorities of the right package set in
> unreleased, no?
I belive that there's no need to support backward compatibility since it
is not officially supported yet.
I just didn't get where those suites are suppose to be done. Do you mean
a suite script(1) at debootstrap or a specific suite at DAK(2)?
In both cases I disagree, bellow I detail why:
1) doing a specific suite for debootstrap surely makes sense as a
meanwhile solution but I'd much prefer to have it properly fixed at
override side.
2) I belive it could be done in DAK in override layers; a common one
and a specific one for each kernel that override the value for it. In
DAK POV it would look like a arch specific override and I see no
problem in this approuch for the problem. Obviously, DAK people would
need to comment on this if we really thing this is the way to go.
>>> Index: debootstrap.8
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- debootstrap.8 (revision 57816)
>>> +++ debootstrap.8 (working copy)
>>> @@ -135,6 +135,30 @@
>>> .IP "\fB\-\-debian\-installer\fP"
>>> Used for internal purposes by the debian-installer
>>> .IP
>>> +.SH "PORTER OPTIONS"
>>> +.
>>> +.PP
>>> +The following options should be useful only to porters whose arch has
>>> +not yet been integrating into the official archive, and who need to
>>> +download additional packages from a suite called \fIunreleased\fR or
>>> +similar.
>>> +.IP
>>> +.IP "\fB\-\-extra\-mirror EXTRA_MIRROR\fP"
>>> +Set the mirror for the extra packages, defaults to \fIMIRROR\fR.
>>> +.IP
>>> +.IP "\fB\-\-extra\-suite EXTRA_SUITE\fP"
>>> +Set the suite name to use for the extra packages, defaults to
>>> +\fIunreleased\fR.
>>> +.IP
>>> +.IP "\fB\-\-extra\-include=freebsd\-hackedutils,freebsd\-utils,...\fP"
>>> +Set the packages to pull from there.
>>> +.PP
>>> +Note that all dependencies have to be solved manually: the extra
>>> +included packages should be autosufficient (in \fIEXTRA_SUITE\fR);
>>> +and their dependencies in \fISUITE\fR have to be added using
>>> +\fB\-\-include\fP. A helper script is available in debootstrap's
>>> +sources, see \fIscripts/porters/\fR).
>>> +.IP
>>> .SH "EXAMPLE"
>>> .
>>> .PP
>>
>> While I understand why those options are required I dislike the idea to
>> have them at official deboostrap.
>
> They are more generally useful though. Everyone who wants to test with
> adding extra packages (that are not in Debian proper) to base could use
> them.
To make easy for us to decide about it all, it would be nice if Luca
could split the patch in two. One adding the
--extra-{mirror,suite,include} options and another with freebsd
specifics. Could you (Luca) take a look and split it for us?
[...]
Cheers,
--
O T A V I O S A L V A D O R
---------------------------------------------
E-mail: ota...@debian.org UIN: 5906116
GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855
Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br
---------------------------------------------
"Microsoft sells you Windows ... Linux gives
you the whole house."
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
