On 2024-12-23 07:49:57, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues wrote:
[...]
> If this variable were to be re-used then somebody who intends to build for
> bookworm-backports would have a chroot for just bookworm, without backports
> extracted. That is wrong.
Is it really? I mean if you don't have a bookworm-backports tarball, you
don't, and you fallback to plain bookworm, that seems fine to me: you're
building your backport without any other possible backports deps, and it
might fail, but if it's a leaf package without any extra deps needed
from backports, it's actually fine.
And if it fails, then you just make a new backports tarball.
> Instead I think what you need here is what aliases used to be for schroot and
> that would be a new mapping option which would replace the symlink mechanism.
>
> Does that make sense?
I think I understand where you're coming from, but I think you're
overthinking this and the existing mechanisms are fine, provided that
you can always fallback to "just make a new tarball".
a.
--
La dictature c'est ferme ta gueule.
La démocratie c'est cause toujours!
- Jean-Louis Barrault
