from:"John"

Hello!

I have created a new partman-hfs package which I am planning to upload
this week in order to support creating HFS/HFS+ partitions from debian-
installer. I have pushed an initial version of the packaging source to
my Github page [1].

The primary purpose of adding HFS/HFS+ support to debian-installer is to
be able to install GRUB on Apple Power Macintosh machines. However, it
will, of course, also allow to create HFS/HFS+ partitions on any other
target. HFS/HFS+ is probably useful for anyone using a Mac with dual-boot
configuration to create a partition for data sharing.

Since this is the first time I have created a partman support package,
I'd appreciate some feedback although I don't think there much that can
be done wrong for these type of packages.

I have already successfully tested the package on one of my Apple PowerMacs
and it works correctly, including the check mechanisms although I'm not
sure we really need the check for proper alignment, I copied that code
from the partman-ext3 package.

Thanks,
Adrian

> [1] https://github.com/glaubitz/partman-hfs

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

Re: How to deal with po files in debian-installer?

Hi!

On 3/23/22 14:20, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> John Paul Adrian Glaubitz  (2022-03-23):
>> I have created a new udeb package called partman-hfs to add HFS/HFS+
>> support to partman and I'm just wondering how to properly deal with
>> internationalization support in the package.
>>
>> Do I understand the mechanism correctly that I just need to create the
>> files
>>
>> - debian/partman-hfs.templates
>> - debian/po/outout
> 
> Are you sure about that one? :)

Well, no ;-).

>> - debian/POTFILES.in
>>
>> and the translators will do the rest or is there anything else I need to do?
> 
> Holger will be able to tell you more about this, but you need that
> package to be known by the l10n machinery, via:
>   
> https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/d-i/-/blob/master/packages/po/packages_list

OK, I'll wait for Holger if he wants to add any comments.

Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

Re: debian-installer missing Standards-Version

On 3/23/22 13:32, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 10:46:08AM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>> Does anyone know whether this is by design or is this an oversight?
> 
> This is by design.  udeb don't follow policy.  So listing a policy
> version is somewhat distracting.

Makes sense! Thank you!

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

How to deal with po files in debian-installer?

Hi!

I have created a new udeb package called partman-hfs to add HFS/HFS+ support to
partman and I'm just wondering how to properly deal with internationalization
support in the package.

Do I understand the mechanism correctly that I just need to create the files

- debian/partman-hfs.templates
- debian/po/outout
- debian/POTFILES.in

and the translators will do the rest or is there anything else I need to do?

I am referring to the manual 2.2 in the i18-guide of debian-installer [1].

Thanks,
Adrian

> [1] https://d-i.debian.org/doc/i18n-guide/ch02s02.html

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

Re: debian-installer missing Standards-Version

Hi Cyril!

On 3/23/22 11:03, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> John Paul Adrian Glaubitz  (2022-03-23):
>> I have noticed that several udebs such as partman-ext3 are missing the
>> Standards-Version in their debian/control [1] files.
>>
>> Does anyone know whether this is by design or is this an oversight?
>>
>> I'm asking because lintian is complaining about that when building the
>> package.
> 
> This is #991533. Given the lengthy thread it turned into, I gave up.

Thanks. That answers my question.

>> Also, many of these packages are still stuck with debian/compat
>> version 9. Do we want to upgrade the version to something more recent?
> 
> Maybe. I think I'd like people who would like to look into that to:
>  (1) be cautious, there might be udeb-related regressions or behavorial
>  changes that might not have been caught earlier;
>  (2) maybe plan upgrading all packages, possibly not at once, but over a
>  small-ish time window, so that we don't stay too long with packages
>  with old and new compat levels, especially if it's not just about
>  bumping the compat level.
> 
>> And do we want to switch to the debhelper-compat module?
> 
> No idea at the moment, I'd have to read up some more about that part. If
> that's the recommended way (according to debhelper developers) and if
> that's what people expect these days, sure.

OK. I'll stick to the current versions used in debian-installer and let it
up to the installer team to bump these versions in the partman-hfs
package.

Thanks,
Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

Remnants of Yaboot support in debian-installer

Hello!

While working on the new partman-hfs package, I peeked at other partman-* 
packages
and noticed that partman-jfs still contains a workaround [1] for the Yaboot 
bootloader
which we used on Apple Power Macintosh in the past.

Since we switched both the powerpc and ppc64 ports over to GRUB and completely 
dropped
Yaboot which is unmaintained upstream, these workarounds can be removed.

Thus, if anyone runs into such a workaround for Yaboot or powerpc, please feel 
free
to remove them. If you make any such changes, please let me know so I can have 
a quick
look at it to make sure it does not break debian-installer on powerpc/ppc64 in 
an
unintended way although I think this is very unlikely.

Thanks,
Adrian

> [1] 
> https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/partman-jfs/-/blob/master/check.d/no_jfs_boot

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

debian-installer missing Standards-Version

Hello!

I have noticed that several udebs such as partman-ext3 are missing the 
Standards-Version
in their debian/control [1] files.

Does anyone know whether this is by design or is this an oversight?

I'm asking because lintian is complaining about that when building the package.

Also, many of these packages are still stuck with debian/compat version 9. Do 
we want to upgrade
the version to something more recent? And do we want to switch to the 
debhelper-compat module?

Thanks,
Adrian

> [1] 
> https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/partman-ext3/-/blob/master/debian/control

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

Re: debian over pxe

2022-03-13 Thread john doe


On 3/13/2022 3:49 PM, Rishi Saini wrote:

Hi,

I have setup pxe boot environment to install my customize iso created using 
simple-cdd profiles.I am able to install standard ISO but how to instruct 
debian install to install using my own simple-cdd profiles over pxe.



You cant' use PXE booting and iso file.
To boot Debian using PXE you will need a netboot image.


If you want 'preseeding' in your iso file, see (1).

1)  https://wiki.debian.org/Simple-CDD/Howto

--
John Doe

Re: Debian CD

2022-03-04 Thread John Paul Adrian Glaubitz

On 3/4/22 20:22, Mike Hosken wrote:
> It’s a RP4300 G3

What kind of hardware is that? When I google this, I'm getting results
for hamradio hand receivers.

Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

Re: Having a d-i boot timeout for enabling speech?

2022-02-27 Thread john doe


On 2/28/2022 12:17 AM, Holger Wansing wrote:

Hi,

Samuel Thibault  wrote (Sun, 13 Feb 2022 02:28:48 +0100):

Users on the debian-accessibility mailing list reported that they found
it very useful that the MacOS X installation image automatically starts
a speech-enabled installer when the boot menu is left untouched for
10 seconds, so that blind people have really nothing more to do than
plugging the installation USB key and turning the computer on to get a
speaking installer (and notably in the case when the computer does not
have a hardware speaker for beeping at the boot menu).

It happens that syslinux supports this, the attached patch implements
it. What do debian-boot people think about the idea?


This seems to be only in interest for a limited group of people, however
from my point of view the pro's beat the con's, so my vote would be
"why not".



Increasing the wait time to something like 60sec might not be a bad idea
to avoid this being a distraction to the vast majority of users.

Even better would be to aline with what other OSes are doing (docs welcome).

For what it is worth, I could not find documentation backing up a wait
time in other OSes.

--
John Doe

Re: How to get preseed to ASK me for hostname + strange partitioning behaviour

2022-01-20 Thread john doe


On 1/20/2022 5:11 PM, Jonas Bygdén wrote:

Ok, now it looks like this:

# Any hostname and domain names assigned from dhcp take precedence over
# values set here. However, setting the values still prevents the questions
# from being shown, even if values come from dhcp.
d-i netcfg/get_hostname string unassigned-hostname
d-i netcfg/get_domain string unassigned-domain
d-i netcfg/get_hostname seen false
d-i netcfg/get_domain seen false

# If you want to force a hostname, regardless of what either the DHCP
# server returns or what the reverse DNS entry for the IP is, uncomment
# and adjust the following line.
#d-i netcfg/hostname string somehost
#d-i netcfg/hostname seen false

# Disable that annoying WEP key dialog.
#d-i netcfg/wireless_wep string
# The wacky dhcp hostname that some ISPs use as a password of sorts.
d-i netcfg/dhcp_hostname string debian
d-i netcfg/get_hostname seen false
d-i netcfg/get_domain seen false

But still - it goes directly to the partitioning after choosing keyboard 
layout, without any hostname question.



Maybey setting the 'priority' to 'high' instead of 'critical'.

--
John Doe

Bug#1002976: installation-reports: Installer Does Not Provide Screen Reader in Accessible Installation

2022-01-16 Thread john doe


On 1/17/2022 1:13 AM, D.J.J. Ring, Jr. wrote:

Here's the message, i didn't include the bug address.

I'm new



We've all been there!!! :)

Please understand that it is as frustrated for you as it is for us.

P.S.

Apologies for the crossposting, from now on I will only send to this bug
report.

--
John Doe

Re: Bug#999249: Package will now be considered for auto-removal

2022-01-08 Thread John Paul Adrian Glaubitz

Hello!

On 1/8/22 20:35, Graham Inggs wrote:
> The release team no longer [1] considers popcon a criterion for
> inclusion in the list of key packages [2].
> 
> This email is a courtesy reminder of this bug, and should prevent
> instant auto-removal once the rule is changed in britney.

discover has an installation count of nearly 200.000. Do we really remove
a package that is being installed on so many machines?

Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

Re: Bug#1002976: installation-reports: Installer Fault Accessibility No Screen Reader Heard

2022-01-03 Thread john doe


On 1/3/2022 9:59 AM, D.J.J. Ring, Jr. wrote:

John Doe,

Someone told me of a method of saving log files from the installer before
it writes to the hard drive it's going to install to.

The error occurs prior to writing to any partition.

If these errors are kept in system RAM until the partitions are formatted
and then written to that partition, all is OK,

But the errors precede writing to disk.

I've asked already, maybe you answered with your "debug d-i" comment but I
have no idea what it means or how to use it to help the boot and installer
developers.



From (1):

"These messages can also be found in /var/log/syslog. After
installation, this log is copied to /var/log/installer/syslog on your
new system. Other installation messages may be found in /var/log/ during
the installation, and /var/log/installer/ after the computer has been
booted into the installed system."

This should alleviate your conserns.


1)  https://www.debian.org/releases/buster/amd64/ch06s01.en.html

--
John Doe

Re: Bug#1002976: installation-reports: Installer Fault Accessibility No Screen Reader Heard

2022-01-03 Thread john doe

On 1/3/2022 9:06 AM, D.J.J. Ring, Jr. wrote:

On Mon, Jan 3, 2022, 02:09 john doe wrote:

On 1/3/2022 12:18 AM, D.J.J. Ring, Jr. wrote:

On Sun, Jan 2, 2022 at 8:25 AM john doe wrote:

On 1/2/2022 1:56 PM, D.J.J. Ring, Jr. wrote:

On Sun, Jan 2, 2022, 03:59 Holger Wansing

wrote:

Hi,

Am 2. Januar 2022 02:40:16 MEZ schrieb "David J. Ring, Jr." <

n...@arrl.net

lspci -knn: 00:03.0 Audio device [0403]: Intel Corporation

Broadwell-U

Audio Controller [8086:160c] (rev 09)

As I already wrote:
my best guess for this one would be
https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/debian-installer/#errata

So is this fixed? Does the daily our weekly installer with firmware

allow

speech to be heard during installation?

No it is not.

Pick the desired architecture at (1) and remember that this is a work
in progress!

Feedback from the comunity will eventually make this workable for all of
us.

https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/cd-including-firmware/daily-builds/sid_d-i/current/

--
John Doe

Hello John Doe,

I picked the correct architecture, downloaded, checked the sha250sum,

then

used dd to make a usb bootable usb stick.

It detected my sound card, but after that no sound was heard in the
accessible install.

I remember that someone told me there was a switch to somehow save log
files while installing and a way to upload them to pastebin web site,

but I

have forgotten how to do that, and I cannot find any documentation to

help

me.

I need something to tell the developers about the problems with the
installer without actually installing Debian, as I have already installed
Debian and I have the installer logs.

How are you able to "Install Debian With Speach' if the installer does
not speak after having detecting your sound card?

--
John Doe

I use a magnifier glass to read the screen.

Best to you,

David

Okay.

I'll say a fiew things:
- While you certainly can debug d-i (debugging Debian installer), the
easiest way to access logs is to tar up '/var/log/installer' after
installation
and to provided it as an attachment.
- The utility 'dd' is not required to copy the iso onto the USB key, 'cp
*.iso /dev/sdb' is enough.
- If you reinstall Debian many times, you should maybe consider using a
'preseed' file.
- As far as I understand it, everything is working fine on Buster but
not on Bullseye, tarring the logs from a Buster installation and from
Bullseye might give us some clues on where this is failing.

--
John Doe

Re: Bug#1002976: installation-reports: Installer Fault Accessibility No Screen Reader Heard

2022-01-02 Thread john doe

On 1/3/2022 12:18 AM, D.J.J. Ring, Jr. wrote:

On Sun, Jan 2, 2022 at 8:25 AM john doe wrote:

On 1/2/2022 1:56 PM, D.J.J. Ring, Jr. wrote:

On Sun, Jan 2, 2022, 03:59 Holger Wansing wrote:

Hi,

Am 2. Januar 2022 02:40:16 MEZ schrieb "David J. Ring, Jr." <

n...@arrl.net

lspci -knn: 00:03.0 Audio device [0403]: Intel Corporation Broadwell-U

Audio Controller [8086:160c] (rev 09)

As I already wrote:
my best guess for this one would be
https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/debian-installer/#errata

So is this fixed? Does the daily our weekly installer with firmware allow
speech to be heard during installation?

No it is not.

Pick the desired architecture at (1) and remember that this is a work
in progress!

Feedback from the comunity will eventually make this workable for all of
us.

https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/cd-including-firmware/daily-builds/sid_d-i/current/

--
John Doe

Hello John Doe,

I picked the correct architecture, downloaded, checked the sha250sum, then
used dd to make a usb bootable usb stick.

It detected my sound card, but after that no sound was heard in the
accessible install.

I remember that someone told me there was a switch to somehow save log
files while installing and a way to upload them to pastebin web site, but I
have forgotten how to do that, and I cannot find any documentation to help
me.

I need something to tell the developers about the problems with the
installer without actually installing Debian, as I have already installed
Debian and I have the installer logs.

How are you able to "Install Debian With Speach' if the installer does
not speak after having detecting your sound card?

--
John Doe

Re: Bug#1002976: installation-reports: Installer Fault Accessibility No Screen Reader Heard

2022-01-02 Thread john doe


On 1/2/2022 1:56 PM, D.J.J. Ring, Jr. wrote:

On Sun, Jan 2, 2022, 03:59 Holger Wansing  wrote:


Hi,

Am 2. Januar 2022 02:40:16 MEZ schrieb "David J. Ring, Jr." 
:

lspci -knn: 00:03.0 Audio device [0403]: Intel Corporation Broadwell-U

Audio Controller [8086:160c] (rev 09)


As I already wrote:
my best guess for this one would be
https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/debian-installer/#errata




So is this fixed? Does the daily our weekly installer with firmware allow
speech to be heard during installation?



No it is not.

Pick the desired architecture  at (1) and remember that this is a work
in progress!

Feedback from the comunity will eventually make this workable for all of us.


1)
https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/cd-including-firmware/daily-builds/sid_d-i/current/

--
John Doe

Re: Bug#1002921: installation-reports: No Screen Reader, Cannot boot into MATE GUI, Root only can

2022-01-01 Thread john doe


On 1/2/2022 1:20 AM, D.J.J. Ring, Jr. wrote:

I made a new partition for /home and I reinstalled Debian, this time I
could lot in to MATE and I could log into the CLI.

But the issue remains of after the Installation disk detects my sound card,
it seems to find my sound card, but immediately after finding it, no
further sound is heard.

This remains.



That would be lovely if you could bottom post instead of top posting.

The only thing that we can help you with is an issue with the Debian
installer.

I must say, I lost track of what is the issue you are having so please
do the following:

1)  Install Debian from scratch

That is, let d-i wipe the all content of your drive, this will result in
a fresh install of Debian.


2)  Attach all files from '/var/log/installer' to this bug report.

Please attached all of those files in one e-mail or create a tarball and
attached it:

$ tar -C var/log -cf installer.tar.bz2 installer


3)  Take the time to describe one issue you are having per bugreport

The more explicit you are and stick to the point the better we will be
able to help you.


Granted, this will take sometime to do but that is the only way we will
be able to fix the issue!


P.S.

By 'we' I mean the comunity.

--
John Doe

Re: At what time of the install process a script is executed with 'preseed/run'?

2021-12-29 Thread john doe


On 12/29/2021 4:35 PM, Holger Wansing wrote:

Hi,

Am 26. Dezember 2021 19:18:26 MEZ schrieb john doe :

On 12/26/2021 5:44 PM, Holger Wansing wrote:



Am 26. Dezember 2021 17:30:03 MEZ schrieb john doe :


Can someone confirm when 'preseed/run' is executed?

In other words, what is the best way to download and execute a script at
the end of the install process.




[...]


Actually I was more hoping for an equivalent of 'preseed/run' to the
'preseed/late_command'.
The late_command will not per default download the *.sh file.


The preseed/run part is documented in chapter B.5.3 "Chainloading of
preconfiguration files":
https://d-i.debian.org/manual/en.amd64/apbs05.html

So I guess this not a functionality to be executed at the end of
installation, it only makes sense somewhere at the beginning.



Thank you for this,

I guess you are refering to:

"
# Most flexibly of all, this downloads a program and runs it. The program
# can use commands such as debconf-set to manipulate the debconf database.
# More than one script can be listed, separated by spaces.
# Note that if the filenames are relative, they are taken from the same
# directory as the preconfiguration file that runs them.
#d-i preseed/run string foo.sh"

In the description text, to me at least, it is not clear at what stage
this command is executed!!! :)
Having played a bit more, I can confirm that this command is not
executed at the end of the installation process.

While I was looking to understand what was going on, I came across (1)
and this is where Ubuntu differs from Debian:

"on a web server. In this example, if the preseed file sets preseed/run
to /scripts/late_command.sh then the file will be fetched from
http://autoserver.example.com/d-i/focal/./scripts/late_command.sh.;

I would love to see a rewording of the above text which would clearly
state at what time the command is executed!!! :)

I realy appreciate your help.

1)  https://help.ubuntu.com/lts/installation-guide/s390x/apbs02.html

--
John Doe

Re: At what time of the install process a script is executed with 'preseed/run'?

2021-12-26 Thread john doe


On 12/26/2021 5:44 PM, Holger Wansing wrote:



Am 26. Dezember 2021 17:30:03 MEZ schrieb john doe :

Debians,

From a preseed file I need to download and execute as the last command
a script.
I'm playing with 'd-i preseed/run string foo.sh' the script execute
successfully but does not look to be executed as the last command in the
install process.

Can someone confirm when 'preseed/run' is executed?

In other words, what is the best way to download and execute a script at
the end of the install process.


Not exactly answering your question, but the installation-guide
has a chapter about this, see
https://d-i.debian.org/manual/en.amd64/apbs05.html

I guess, "preseed/late_command is what you want...



Actually I was more hoping for an equivalent of 'preseed/run' to the
'preseed/late_command'.
The late_command will not per default download the *.sh file.

Thanks  alot for your answer.

--
John Doe

At what time of the install process a script is executed with 'preseed/run'?

2021-12-26 Thread john doe


Debians,

From a preseed file I need to download and execute as the last command
a script.
I'm playing with 'd-i preseed/run string foo.sh' the script execute
successfully but does not look to be executed as the last command in the
install process.

Can someone confirm when 'preseed/run' is executed?

In other words, what is the best way to download and execute a script at
the end of the install process.

Any help is appreciated.

--
John Doe

Bug#998668: anna: Make it possible to install with a mismatched kernel

2021-11-21 Thread John Paul Adrian Glaubitz

Hello!

On 11/21/21 09:31, Holger Wansing wrote:
> I have prepared (and tested) a patch for this, attached.
> This is mostly a revert of the mentioned change in 1.73, besides trimming 
> the message text.

It should be "installation", not "install". And I would put another newline
before the new paragraph.

Thanks,
Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

Bug#998867: debootstrap: --no-merged-usr became a no-op

2021-11-15 Thread Dimitri John Ledkov

There are multiple issues reported in a single bug.

> This means that I cannot create a Debian chroot from Debian unstable from 10 
> years ago from snapshot.debian.org without merged-/usr and thus my chroot 
> will behave differently as it did back then.
> Please re-enable --no-merged-usr so that I can re-create old chroots from 
> snapshot.d.o again.

I don't think debootstrap has such goals, or requirement to be able to
bootstrap rolling release without a changing codename like
unstable/sid. debootstrap already sets options that may not be
supported or lead to incorrect chroots if debootstrap & scripts are
used from too far away time window for a rolling release. If you
desire to re-create a debootstrap of unstable as it looked 10 years
ago, it is best to do it using 10 years old debootstrap from the said
snapshot archive too.

Note that stable/testing are not affected as much, because the rolling
alias is resolved to a codename, and hence doing debootstrap from an
old snapshot of "stable" will do what the codename "lenny" wants,
although there is no guarantee that current debootstrap will resolve
things the same way as the 10 year old debootstrap did.

Allowing --no-merged-usr option unguarded may lead to users creating
incorrect installations and chroots for the future releases,
especially since packages can assume merged-usr in the upcoming
releases.

I wonder if I can do some further checks, I.e. if unstable, and the
InRelease / Release Date is old, do split-usr. I.e. anything before
2022. Effectively implement a time guard "old-sid" vs "new-sid", since
the codename for sid has not changed. Thus allowing to bootstrap old
sid snapshots in a manner closer to what old debootstrap from said
snapshot would do. But still wIthout any guarantees that it will be
identical.

> Also, build chroots must still be created without merged-usr for 
> sid/bookworm, until something's been done to migrate user systems.

But Julien, you said that buildds run stable, meaning they are
unaffected by this debootstrap change in sid/bookworm.

> Please point out what you plan to do about this change in debootstrap so that 
> I can adapt the mmdebstrap autopkgtest accordingly.

I did notice the mmdebstrap autopkgtest regression. I also noticed
that mmdebstrap does not support --merged-usr flag, and instead offers
three ways of creating chroots that are merged-usr.
To match the current debootstrap behaviour in sid, as currently
implemented in debootstrap in sid, it seems to me that mmdebstrap
should auto-enable
`--setup-hook=/usr/share/mmdebstrap/hooks/merged-usr/setup00.sh` for
sid/bookworm, but somehow continue to honor user supplied
--setup-hooks (append? override?) I was going to file a bug report
about that after using mmdebstrap, as I have not used it yet and not
sure how that would fit into UX and user expectations.

-- 
Regards,

Dimitri.

Bug#998668: anna: Make it possible to install with a mismatched kernel

2021-11-06 Thread John Paul Adrian Glaubitz

Hello Holger!

On 11/6/21 21:13, Holger Wansing wrote:
> Hmm, isn't that exactly the situation, we had before the above mentioned 
> change?
> 
> There were reasons, why this change was made:
> it was mentioned, that proceeding without kernel modules in the correct
> version isn't possible at all. (That was #749991, #367515.)
> 
> Was that statement incorrect?

Well, the claim that you cannot continue without kernel modules is wrong.

As Vagrant explained, when you build a custom kernel to boot the machine, you 
don't
care about the kernel package or the module packages that are part of Debian as 
the
custom kernel already gets the machine up and running and provides device 
drivers,
filesystems and so on.

The installer can just install the system normally and install the distribution 
kernel,
ignoring that the running kernel is actually a different one. Once the system 
has been
installed, the user can just boot the installed system with the custom kernel.

There is no need to make this particular check a hard fail.

Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

Re: Clean-up d-i repo [ Re: Closing the window for the l10n updates ]

2021-10-30 Thread John Paul Adrian Glaubitz

Hello!

On 10/29/21 23:23, Holger Wansing wrote:
> What about removing such unused packages from d-i?
> 
> A patch is attached, to remove the following from .mrconfig:
>   - arcboot-installer
>   - elilo-installer
>   - kbd-chooser
>   - lilo-installer
>   - partman-prep
>   - prep-installer
>   - quik-installer
>   - yaboot-installer

Please don't touch the repos itself, however. Also, quik-installer will be used
in the future again when I restore support for OldWorld PowerMacs.

> More possible candidates (not sure, if these are still in use; these
> packages don't have any po files, so removing them is not to exclude
> them from l10n machinery):
> 
>   - desktop-chooser
>   - efi-reader
>   - mountmedia
>   - oldsys-preseed
>   - partconf
>   - usb-discover
> 
> 
> Also, all such "deactivated" packages should most likely be moved into a 
> subgroup named "attic" or similar, to demonstrate their status.

Please let me look through the packages first thoroughly. I don't have the
time for that now, however.

Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

Bug#604839: [installation-guide] Planned overhaul of chapter 4.3 "Preparing Files for USB Memory Stick Booting"

2021-10-27 Thread John Paul Adrian Glaubitz

Hello Holger!

On 10/2/21 19:48, Holger Wansing wrote:
> Notes:
> - I would not call files like vmlinuz or initrd.gz an "image" (to not be
>   confused with the installation ISO images); so I changed such occurrences
>   into "files".

Sorry for being late to the party here, but FWIW, the terminology kernel image
and initramfs/init.rd image is correct. Those are actually image files as
they are loaded and mapped into memory 1:1, i.e. as an image.

People usually use the name "kernel image", not "kernel file".

Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

Bug#996019: debootstrap: bootstrap of ubuntu impish is failing

2021-10-23 Thread Dimitri John Ledkov

On Sat, 23 Oct 2021, 19:49 Sylvestre Ledru,  wrote:

> Hello
> Le 20/10/2021 à 18:05, Dimitri John Ledkov a écrit :
>
> Hi,
>
> I've tried to reproduce this more
>
> Thanks, I appreciate it!
>
> and I have a few questions:
>
> 1) what is the version of debootstrap ?
>
> 1.0.123 (bullseye & sid)
>


Impish support is only available in experimental at the moment in the
1.0.124. can you please try that?

I need to add jammy and upload it to unstable sooner rather than later.
Given that archive is unfrozen now.

> 2) do any config files divert as to which debootstrap's `functions`
> file is used ?
>
>
> https://github.com/opencollab/llvm-jenkins.debian.net/blob/master/pbuilderrc
>
> A few hooks but nothing relevant I think:
>
>
> https://github.com/opencollab/llvm-jenkins.debian.net/tree/master/pbuilder-hookdir
>
> 3) what settings do you have in /tmp/configfile ?
>
> Nothing relevant I think:
>
> # pbuilder config file generated by jenkins-debian-glue on Mon Oct 11 
> 21:54:58 UTC 2021
> CCACHEDIR="/var/cache/pbuilder/ccache"
> # Building for Ubuntu detected, enabling universe repository component to 
> work around cowdancer issue:
> COMPONENTS="main universe"
>
> I'm trying to eliminate a case where new scripts/impish is used that
> sets AR extractor, and yet old functions file is used which doesn't
> know how to zstdcat in the AR extractor.
>
> ie.
> ```
> $ grep zstdcat /usr/share/debootstrap/functions
> control.tar.zst) cat_cmd=zstdcat ;;
> data.tar.zst) cat_cmd=zstdcat ;;
> ```
> I'm not sure what in your case is listed in /tmp/configfile. I assume
> that one thing is pointer to the custom mirror.
>
> Thanks for the infos!
>
> The full log is available here:
>
>
> https://llvm-jenkins.debian.net/view/Ubuntu%20Impish/job/llvm-toolchain-impish-12-binaries/architecture=amd64,distribution=impish,label=amd64/5/console
>
> or
>
>
> https://llvm-jenkins.debian.net/view/Ubuntu%20Impish/job/llvm-toolchain-impish-13-binaries/architecture=amd64,distribution=impish,label=amd64/10/
>
> Please let me know if there is anything I can do to test :)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Sylvestre
>
>
>

Re: [ubuntu] tasksel_3.68_amd64.changes (Rejected)

Hello!

On 10/21/21 14:35, Holger Wansing wrote:
> Hmm. Since the relevant upload happened 5 months ago, and it was accepted into
> unstable and migrated to testing, I have cleaned up that directory some time 
> ago, so I don't have that .upload file anymore.
> 
> However, I did not clean up that directory after I uploaded apt-setup 
> in September (you asked me for that :-)), and there is no such .upload
> file there either.
> Hmm, maybe there is some option to choose, if that should be generated or not?

The .upload file is normally always generated and also acts as a lock file to 
keep
you from uploading the same changes file again.

> Is it a good idea to have that files, and keep them for whatever situation?

It's up to you. I normally don't clean up such directories so quickly.

Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

Re: [ubuntu] tasksel_3.68_amd64.changes (Rejected)

Hello!

On 10/21/21 14:06, Holger Wansing wrote:
> John Paul Adrian Glaubitz  wrote (Thu, 21 Oct 
> 2021 13:54:00 +0200):
>> Ubuntu imports Debian source packages after they are in unstable as far as
>> I know. So, the fact that you got an email from the Ubuntu archive server
>> is very suspicious.
>>
>> Can you paste the .upload file for this upload?
> 
> Hmm, I am not aware of such .upload file.
> Where should I find this?
> (I use dput for uploading of packages to Debian archive.)

It will be generated by dput and should be found in the same directory from 
where
you uploaded the changes file.

Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

Re: [ubuntu] tasksel_3.68_amd64.changes (Rejected)

On 10/21/21 13:51, Holger Wansing wrote:
>> It looks like you tried uploading to the Ubuntu FTP server instead of Debian,
>> didn't you?
> 
> No, of course not.
> 
> I guess the/some Debian packages are (semi-)automatically uploaded
> (or ported/migrated or whatever name is sufficient for this) to Ubuntu?
> But I have no further knowledge on this.

Ubuntu imports Debian source packages after they are in unstable as far as
I know. So, the fact that you got an email from the Ubuntu archive server
is very suspicious.

Can you paste the .upload file for this upload?

Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

Re: [ubuntu] tasksel_3.68_amd64.changes (Rejected)

Hello Holger!

On 10/21/21 13:05, Holger Wansing wrote:
>> task-albanian-desktop_3.68_all.deb: Unknown section 'tasks'
>> task-amharic-desktop_3.68_all.deb: Unknown section 'tasks'
>> task-amharic-gnome-desktop_3.68_all.deb: Unknown section 'tasks'
(...)
>> task-xhosa-kde-desktop_3.68_all.deb: Unknown section 'tasks'
>> tasksel_3.68_amd64.buildinfo: Unknown section 'tasks'
>> Further error processing not possible because of a critical previous error.
> 
> I received this mail today.
> I fail to see what's the exact problem here.
> tasksel 3.68 builds fine here with sbuild.
> 
> Where can I get more information on this?
> What's the exact statement behind this?
> Why does this come up NOW? (tasksel 3.68 was uploaded ~5 months ago.)
> Is there a way to reproduce this locally somehow? (for example with a locally
> changed tasksel package, for debugging)
> Is it possible, that the reason behind this is in previous versions, even if
> the messages points to 3.68? (I don't see any critical changings in 3.68)

It looks like you tried uploading to the Ubuntu FTP server instead of Debian,
didn't you?

Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

Bug#996019: debootstrap: bootstrap of ubuntu impish is failing

2021-10-20 Thread Dimitri John Ledkov

Hi,

I've tried to reproduce this more and I have a few questions:

1) what is the version of debootstrap ?
2) do any config files divert as to which debootstrap's `functions`
file is used ?
3) what settings do you have in /tmp/configfile ?

I'm trying to eliminate a case where new scripts/impish is used that
sets AR extractor, and yet old functions file is used which doesn't
know how to zstdcat in the AR extractor.

ie.
```
$ grep zstdcat /usr/share/debootstrap/functions
control.tar.zst) cat_cmd=zstdcat ;;
data.tar.zst) cat_cmd=zstdcat ;;
```
I'm not sure what in your case is listed in /tmp/configfile. I assume
that one thing is pointer to the custom mirror.

I launched Debian sid, enabled experimental, installed debootstrap
from experimental, install cowbuilder and all the jenkins-debian-glue
stuff. I did echo custom mirror of
http://www-ftp.lip6.fr/pub/linux/distributions//Ubuntu/archive into
/tmp/configfile. Cause that looked like the only custom thing. Not
sure if there are anything else set there. and Things mostly
progressed fine for me:

# DIST=$d ARCH=$a cowbuilder --create --basepath
/var/cache/pbuilder/base-$d-$a.cow --distribution $d --debootstrap
debootstrap --architecture $a --debootstrapopts --arch
--debootstrapopts amd64 --debootstrapopts --variant=buildd
--configfile=/tmp/configfile --hookdir
/usr/share/jenkins-debian-glue/pbuilder-hookdir/
I: Invoking pbuilder
I: forking: pbuilder create --debootstrap debootstrap
--debootstrapopts --arch --debootstrapopts amd64 --debootstrapopts
--variant=buildd --configfile /tmp/configfile --hookdir
/usr/share/jenkins-debian-glue/pbuilder-hookdir/ --buildplace
/var/cache/pbuilder/base-impish-amd64.cow --mirror
http://www-ftp.lip6.fr/pub/linux/distributions//Ubuntu/archive/
--architecture amd64 --distribution impish --no-targz --extrapackages
cowdancer
W: /root/.pbuilderrc does not exist
I: Running in no-targz mode
I: Distribution is impish.
I: Current time: Wed Oct 20 15:07:00 UTC 2021
I: pbuilder-time-stamp: 1634742420
I: Building the build environment
I: running debootstrap
/usr/bin/which: this version of `which' is deprecated; use `command
-v' in scripts instead.
/usr/sbin/debootstrap
I: Target architecture can be executed
I: impish uses zstd compression, setting --extractor=ar option
I: Retrieving InRelease
I: Checking Release signature
I: Valid Release signature (key id F6ECB3762474EDA9D21B7022871920D1991BC93C)
I: Retrieving Packages
I: Validating Packages
I: Resolving dependencies of required packages...
I: Resolving dependencies of base packages...
I: Checking component main on
http://www-ftp.lip6.fr/pub/linux/distributions//Ubuntu/archive...

...

I: Retrieving zlib1g 1:1.2.11.dfsg-2ubuntu7
I: Validating zlib1g 1:1.2.11.dfsg-2ubuntu7
I: Chosen extractor for .deb packages: ar
I: Extracting base-files...
I: Extracting base-passwd...

I: Installing core packages...
I: Unpacking required packages...
I: Unpacking base-files...
I: Unpacking base-passwd...

...

I: Configuring required packages...
I: Configuring gcc-11-base:amd64...
I: Configuring lsb-base...
I: Configuring libtirpc-common..
...

Eventually it failed for me with:

Package cowdancer is not available, but is referred to by another package.
This may mean that the package is missing, has been obsoleted, or
is only available from another source

E: Package 'cowdancer' has no installation candidate
E: Package 'aptitude' has no installation candidate
I: unmounting dev/pts filesystem
I: unmounting dev/shm filesystem
I: unmounting proc filesystem
I: unmounting sys filesystem
E: pbuilder create failed
I: forking: rm -rf /var/cache/pbuilder/base-impish-amd64.cow

But that seems like further along than what you have. It is possible
that I didn't enable universe, cause aptitude is available in Ubuntu.

On Sat, 16 Oct 2021 at 10:05, Sylvestre Ledru  wrote:
>
> Hello Dimitri,
>
> Any idea how to fix that? I cannot generate packages for
> https://apt.llvm.org/ for impish from a Debian.
>
> thanks
> Sylvestre
>
> Le 11/10/2021 à 18:08, Sylvestre Ledru a écrit :
> > Hello
> >
> >
> > Le 10/10/2021 à 12:41, Sylvestre Ledru a écrit :
> >> Package: debootstrap
> >> Version: 1.0.124
> >> Severity: normal
> >>
> >> Dear Maintainer,
> >>
> >> $ sudo debootstrap impish impish 
> >> https://www-ftp.lip6.fr/pub/linux/distributions//Ubuntu/archive/
> >> I: impish uses zstd compression, setting --extractor=ar option
> >> I: Retrieving InRelease
> >> I: Retrieving Packages
> >> I: Validating Packages
> >> [...]
> >> I: Validating zlib1g 1:1.2.11.dfsg-2ubuntu7
> >> I: Chosen extractor for .deb packages: ar
> >> I: Extracting base-files...
> >> I: Extracting base-passwd...
> >> E: Extracting .//var/cache/apt/archives/base-passwd_3.5.51_amd64.deb 
> >> requires the zstdcat command, which is not available
> >
> >> One needs to install zstd on the host, including zstd in the
> > debootstrap,set will not help.,,Does $ sudo apt install zstd => fix the
> > issue for you?
> >
> > Yeah, it fixed my test case but my

Bug#996019: debootstrap: bootstrap of ubuntu impish is failing

2021-10-10 Thread Dimitri John Ledkov

On Sun, 10 Oct 2021 12:41:45 +0200 Sylvestre Ledru 
wrote:
> Package: debootstrap
> Version: 1.0.124
> Severity: normal
>
> Dear Maintainer,
>
> $ sudo debootstrap impish impish
https://www-ftp.lip6.fr/pub/linux/distributions//Ubuntu/archive/
> I: impish uses zstd compression, setting --extractor=ar option
> I: Retrieving InRelease
> I: Retrieving Packages
> I: Validating Packages
> [...]
> I: Validating zlib1g 1:1.2.11.dfsg-2ubuntu7
> I: Chosen extractor for .deb packages: ar
> I: Extracting base-files...
> I: Extracting base-passwd...
> E: Extracting .//var/cache/apt/archives/base-passwd_3.5.51_amd64.deb
requires the zstdcat command, which is not available
>
> adding --include=zstd doesn't fix the issue

One needs to install zstd on the host, including zstd in the debootstrap
set will not help.

Does $ sudo apt install zstd => fix the issue for you?



> [...]
> I: Retrieving zstd 1.4.8+dfsg-2.1
> I: Validating zstd 1.4.8+dfsg-2.1
> I: Chosen extractor for .deb packages: ar
> I: Extracting base-files...
> I: Extracting base-passwd...
> E: Extracting .//var/cache/apt/archives/base-passwd_3.5.51_amd64.deb
requires the zstdcat command, which is not available
>
> Thanks,
> Sylvestre
>
> -- System Information:
> Debian Release: bookworm/sid
>   APT prefers unstable
>   APT policy: (600, 'unstable'), (500, 'oldstable-updates'), (500,
'oldoldstable'), (500, 'stable'), (500, 'oldstable'), (300, 'experimental')
> Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
>
> Kernel: Linux 5.10.0-8-amd64 (SMP w/8 CPU threads)
> Kernel taint flags: TAINT_WARN, TAINT_OOT_MODULE, TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE
> Locale: LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE
not set
> Shell: /bin/sh linked to /usr/bin/dash
> Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
> LSM: AppArmor: enabled
>
> Versions of packages debootstrap depends on:
> ii  wget  1.21-1+b1
>
> Versions of packages debootstrap recommends:
> pn  arch-test   
> ii  debian-archive-keyring  2021.1.1
> ii  gnupg   2.2.27-2
>
> Versions of packages debootstrap suggests:
> ii  binutils2.37-7
> pn  squid-deb-proxy-client  
> pn  ubuntu-archive-keyring  
> ii  xz-utils5.2.5-2
> pn  zstd
>
> -- no debconf information
>

Re: partman, growlight, discoverable partitions, and fun

2021-09-28 Thread John Paul Adrian Glaubitz

On 9/28/21 12:13, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> IOW, chill out, nobody's going to kill off partman unless there's
> something that's *actually* better than partman.

Just some comments after reading after this [1] because I honestly find it
unfair the way I am being cornered here.

First of all, neither Fedora or openSUSE seem to use glowlight as their
primary partitioning tool nor are they using discoverable partitions.

Secondly, discoverable partitions are primarily intended for containers
and systemd is using mkosi [2] for generating such images with discoverable
partitions.

Thirdly, Luca Boccassi considers himself to be systemd upstream [3] without
disclosing that information here. This is an information that he should
at least have disclosed before starting to voice his support for discoverable
partitions and insisting that the feature is important enough to kill off
parted.

Thanks,
Adrian

> [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/859240/
> [2] http://0pointer.net/blog/mkosi-a-tool-for-generating-os-images.html
> [3] https://lwn.net/Articles/859769/

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

Re: partman, growlight, discoverable partitions, and fun

> On Sep 27, 2021, at 3:41 PM, Luca Boccassi  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 2021-09-27 at 15:18 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>> 
>>>> On Sep 27, 2021, at 2:25 PM, Luca Boccassi  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Even if that interpretation would work as an excuse to never do
>>> anything, and I'm not really sure it does, this specification has been
>>> published in 2014 [0] so even by Debian standard it's old stuff.
>> 
>> That’s not what I said so. You’re trying to dismiss my opinion as completely 
>> invalid now by trying to frame it such that I am against progress. I am not.
> 
> You dismissed it because it's "new technology":
> 
>> Not for me, though. Debian has always followed the philosophy to be a 
>> universal
>> operating system, which also meant that we can't (immediately) use all the 
>> new
>> technologies and features that other distributions or upstream projects 
>> develop.

You’re reducing my argument to the word “new” which is definitely not my point. 
As you can see from the rest of my message my primary point is that Debian 
follows a different philosophy meaning that we don’t always adopt technologies 
that other distributions use.

Fedora and openSUSE are much more similar to each other than Debian is to both.

> I simply pointed out that it's a 7 years old spec that saw an entire
> LTS Debian version (8, we are now at 11) being released and EOL'ed
> since the time it was published. If this is too new to consider, then
> so are all Debian releases newer than Wheezy.

Yes, but the age was never my argument. My argument was that replacing such a 
fundamental software component like the partitioning tool in an installer is 
something that has to be justified by technical merits and by weighing pros and 
cons against each other.

The fact that’s it’s newer or has the single feature X is not sufficient in my 
opinion. Especially when there is no proof yet that getting support for 
discoverable partitions justifies the loss of features that parted has.

>>> It's
>>> older than Debian Jessie, which was EOL'd last year. If libparted can't
>>> keep up with 7 years old stuff that in the meantime was implemented in
>>> util-linux's (which is a truly universal tool) in 2014, gdisk in 2019,
>>> and so on, then to me it sounds like a tool in maintenance mode:
>>> perfectly fine and adequate for existing tools and programs, but not
>>> quite the best choice for new tools developed from scratch.
>> 
>> Whether a tool that was developed new from scratch is automatically better 
>> is not a given. The burden of proof is on the person trying to introduce the 
>> new software, not on the people maintaining the current set of software.
>> 
>> And claiming that parted is in pure maintenance mode is not true either. It 
>> has a paid developer working on the project and is receiving updates and 
>> improvements.
>> 
>> Whether growlight is better and more suitable for Debian needs to be 
>> technically proven, not just by arguing that it’s the newer project.
>> 
>> Adrian
> 
> Of course. But jumping in and saying "you should use X instead of Y",
> you can't pretend that nobody asks questions such as "ok, but does libX
> support this very much related and relevant 7 years old specification
> that other comparable tools support", no matter how awkward it is for
> libX.

I was not the one that was making this request, it was Nick. I’m perfectly fine 
with the status quo.

Again, the party introducing the new solution should provide the arguments to 
convince the maintainers of the existing solution.

For example, a convincing argument would be a demonstration installation ISO 
which let’s others interested in the project test it and check whether it 
delivers the improvements that were promised.

I don’t think that this is such an extraordinary requirement to ask for.

Also, I would be interested to know what approaches are currently used in 
Fedora, Arch, Gentoo and openSUSE (I will check that later myself when I’m back 
at the computer).

Adrian

Re: partman, growlight, discoverable partitions, and fun

> On Sep 27, 2021, at 2:25 PM, Luca Boccassi  wrote:
> 
> Even if that interpretation would work as an excuse to never do
> anything, and I'm not really sure it does, this specification has been
> published in 2014 [0] so even by Debian standard it's old stuff.

That’s not what I said so. You’re trying to dismiss my opinion as completely 
invalid now by trying to frame it such that I am against progress. I am not.

> It's
> older than Debian Jessie, which was EOL'd last year. If libparted can't
> keep up with 7 years old stuff that in the meantime was implemented in
> util-linux's (which is a truly universal tool) in 2014, gdisk in 2019,
> and so on, then to me it sounds like a tool in maintenance mode:
> perfectly fine and adequate for existing tools and programs, but not
> quite the best choice for new tools developed from scratch.

Whether a tool that was developed new from scratch is automatically better is 
not a given. The burden of proof is on the person trying to introduce the new 
software, not on the people maintaining the current set of software.

And claiming that parted is in pure maintenance mode is not true either. It has 
a paid developer working on the project and is receiving updates and 
improvements.

Whether growlight is better and more suitable for Debian needs to be 
technically proven, not just by arguing that it’s the newer project.

Adrian

Re: partman, growlight, discoverable partitions, and fun

Hello!

On 9/27/21 12:46, Luca Boccassi wrote:
>> Also, since parted is maintained by RedHat, I would expect that this feature
>> would land in parted soon as well.
>>
> If the question is "why does X not use libparted", "does not support
> discoverable parts spec" is a good enough answer for me.

Not for me, though. Debian has always followed the philosophy to be a universal
operating system, which also meant that we can't (immediately) use all the new
technologies and features that other distributions or upstream projects develop.

For example, we don't use systemd-homed or systemd-firstboot either. That 
doesn't
mean Debian is per se worse off. It just means Debian tries to cater different 
use
cases and follows different concepts.

It's different for distributions like Fedora or openSUSE which focus on a very
limited set of targets and use cases. That's why they can quickly adopt to all
the new features and technologies that upstream projects like systemd develop.

I'm not saying that one philosophy is better than the other. I'm just saying 
that
Debian is not like these other distributions.

Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

Re: partman, growlight, discoverable partitions, and fun