Hello Guillem, All, First of all thanks to everyone for the efforts to fix these problems. It seems we've now got fixes in place both in (c)debootstrap and base-passwd, so hopefully we're fine for the next few releases... :-)
On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 17:38:06 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Fri, 2014-11-07 at 08:30:39 +0000, Michael Tautschnig wrote: [...] > > I do agree with all the dpkg reasoning and in a way I'm grateful that dpkg > > made > > this bug surface. But really there shouldn't be any such dependency on the > > order > > of configuration of base-files and base-passwd. > > There needs to be one, and that's part of the problem of bootstrapping > a system. I agree with Santiago that adding an implicit Depends > completely defeats the point of Essential, and that's a wrong fix. > I don't quite see why we would necessarily need a dependency between the two, and the change to base-passwd seems to prove this. (But I understand that explicitly adding a dependency would not be a good idea.) [...] > ISTR there was in the past discussions (AFAIR either in d-d or a dpkg > bug) about trying to move the bootstrapping information into packages > in a bootstrap maintscript or similar. Those would need to be run from > outside the chroot, so that we are not back to the problem of implicit > assumptions and ordering though. And the expectations on the external > environment would need to be specified, for example assuming just POSIX > utilities. > I suppose it was part of those discussions (I wouldn't recall having followed them) that it is not possible to sort out these problems using preinst scripts. > *That* would be a proper fix to the problem of the implicit ordering, > would also be a generic solution independent of the distribution or > derivative, or current set of packages, and we might be able to have > (possibly) a more generic debootstrap. I can try to draft something > up if people are interested in this for jessie+1. > While obviously implicit constraints are worse than explicit ones, having no ordering constraints would seem even better?! I suppose this is infeasible for certain packages, so for now I'll just enjoy that the count has been reduced by one. Thanks again everyone for the efforts, Michael
pgp_n2U7mdFCg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
