Re: busybox in main
On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 03:28:42PM +1100, Glenn McGrath wrote: Whats the point in following a policy that just gets in the road. I really dont understand why our (the installer team) work has to get pushed away into some dark hidden corner. Because the whole point of this argument is that they should not be installed on a normal system, and so they shouldn't be where they might accidentally be? My personal opinion is that Joey is trying to make a compromise by having a seperate area for installer packages, but as far as i know the installer team has no idea whatsoever if or when there will be a seperate area to put installer specific modules. Did you read Joey's original message? He said that he had settled the details with ftpadmin! Dan /\ /\ | Daniel Jacobowitz|__|SCS Class of 2002 | | Debian GNU/Linux Developer__Carnegie Mellon University | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | \/ \/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: busybox in main
Anthony Towns wrote: It might, at some point, become useful for there to be some mini-policy about these debs, or even for it to just be put in policy proper. There already is, although it is very spare (dos/modules.txt in debian-installer cvs). Only certian dpkg features can be used in udebs. The following's the only productive piece of this email, and followups should probably be just to -boot. How should these udebs be treated by testing? We will probably work out something where we bless a Packages file that points at certian udebs as being a particular release of the debian installer. That should then be handled by testing however testing handles versioned releases of the boot-floppies right now. (How does it? Shrug.) My understanding is that the new d-i archive will work essentially as follows: dists/ stable/ main/ binary-i386/ various .debs disks-i386/ various .udebs some basic boot-floppies release notes source/ source to all the .debs and .udebs I've actually been wondering if it might be possible to put the udebs in binary-i386 (but not in the Packages files for any distribution), and then just have Packages files in disks-i386 (or whatever). This lets us use some features of the package pools for udebs too. James? Am I also correct in thinking that each udeb will be generated from a single auto-buildable .dsc? That'd be really impressive if you could pull it off. Am I at least correct in assuming each has an associated .dsc? I suspect package-pools will necessitate this. Yep. The source all goes in main/source or whatever it is called in package pools, wherever the source for a normal debian package goes. Some of these sources will also generate normal debs, some not. The way testing works is to pick and choose new source files and run various checks on the associated debs (like "do they match the source, or are they out of date" and "will they be installable"). The easiest way for me to handle udebs (I think) is to just to completely ignore them: so if all of a package's .debs are okay (and if there are none of them this is trivially true), then it's okay to go in testing. If any of them aren't, they're not. Yes, this sounds about right. But this will probably cause breakages in testing's boot floppies, which I consider a very bad thing. So I guess another possibility would be to just treat the disks-* stuff as another architecture just like binary-* at the moment. Does that make sense? Will disks-* have Packages files? Will the dependencies make sense? Yes it will, yes they will. Hmmm. Am I missing something? Treating disks-* as just another architecture sounds much more appealing now than it did before. Are there any cross-dependencies that I'd have to worry about (ie, a .deb depending on a .udeb or vice-versa, without there being a real .deb (resp. .udeb) that'd also satisfy the dependency)? I assume not. No. Would it be possible, do people think, to have (eg) a release-notes.udeb from which a script on ftp-master automatically extracts the release notes and dumps them somewhere useful? Ditto vmlinuz, and the boot-floppies themselves? The release notes should go in a regular debian package, as far as I'm concerned. There is no point in using a udeb unless we want to install the release notes onto the installer for some reason. -- see shy jo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: busybox in main
Glenn McGrath wrote: What if debian install requires a stock standard package thats in main, does that package have to be in both archives? Yes. Mabye in the long run some sort of sub-packaging system may be apropriate, that way the installer could extract some binaries from existing verified policy compliant packages. But thats probably looking to far ahead. It's conceivable. I'm not going to worry about it now though. -- see shy jo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: busybox in main
Joey Hess wrote: I've actually been wondering if it might be possible to put the udebs in binary-i386 (but not in the Packages files for any distribution), and then just have Packages files in disks-i386 (or whatever). This lets us use some features of the package pools for udebs too. James? Talked to James, this was his plan all along, it turns out. -- see shy jo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: busybox in main
Erik Andersen wrote: I'd go for dists/unstable/debian-installer myself. This is really not a part of main. It's a part of main just like boot-floppies is a part of main. And since we are requiring completely separate packages (.udebs), having a separate archive section makes sense really. I think it's overkill. The only downside (which favors dists/unstable/main/debian-installer), is that then we would duplicate src packages for things also in main... We really don't want to do that. -- see shy jo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: busybox in main
On Wed Oct 25, 2000 at 09:26:00PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote: Adam Di Carlo wrote: dists/ stable/ main/ binary-i386/ various .debs disks-i386/ various .udebs some basic boot-floppies release notes source/ source to all the .debs and .udebs I don't like this scheme because it's assuming either/or with debian-installer vs boot-floppies. Forcing this either/or decision is going to make releasing woody a lot harder. Do you think we should try to get some directory like dists/unstable/main/debian-installer? I'm all for it since it's a clearer directory name anyway. I'd go for dists/unstable/debian-installer myself. This is really not a part of main. And since we are requiring completely separate packages (.udebs), having a separate archive section makes sense really. The only downside (which favors dists/unstable/main/debian-installer), is that then we would duplicate src packages for things also in main... -Erik -- Erik B. Andersen email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons-- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
