Chris Lamb wrote:
> > > My current plan is (1) breathing a little, (2) getting the needed
> > > bugfixes into 10.1.
> >
> > Whoops, I'm afraid I totally neglected to followup on this so I
> > apologise this got stalled. Anyway, anything I can do to help?
>
> I've made an initial step of taking my patch from:
>
> https://bugs.debian.org/926242#127
>
> … and submitting it as a MR on salsa here:
>
> https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/debian-installer/-/merge_requests/13
May I make a gentle request to get this MR merged? It's been open for
about 5 months now, only affects the build system and is only to
handle cases where we have the stranger [foo=bar] arguments in
sources.list(5) entries, which is unlikely to be the case for any
official builds.
As I write in my latest comment on the MR, it is not *strictly*
blocking testing whether d-i images are reproducible, but it is making
it really rather difficult -- I'm using awful 140-line local shell
script, rather using our far-superior testing framework, and we have
likely been accumulating regressions since last time I was seriously
working on this.
Regards,
--
,''`.
: :' : Chris Lamb
`. `'` la...@debian.org 🍥 chris-lamb.co.uk
`-
