On Wed, 22 May 2024 at 16:09, Tianon Gravi wrote:
> The recent upload of src:linux to 6.8+ (specifically 6.8.9-1,
> ironicially uploaded around the same time as the last busybox upload)
> causes src:busybox to FTBFS (logs from reproducible-builds):
>
> ...
>
> https
Source: busybox
Version: 1:1.36.1-7
Severity: serious
Tags: ftbfs upstream
X-Debbugs-Cc: tia...@debian.org
The recent upload of src:linux to 6.8+ (specifically 6.8.9-1,
ironicially uploaded around the same time as the last busybox upload)
causes src:busybox to FTBFS (logs from reproducible-builds)
On Fri, 5 May 2023 at 10:06, Askar Safin wrote:
> Current apt behavior also breaks official debian docker images, I
> reported this here:
> https://github.com/debuerreotype/debuerreotype/pull/153 . The images'
> developer said this is apt completion scripts' problem
To be clear, there was nothing
That looks to me like you probably missed an "apt update" (or "apt-get
update" if you prefer).
♥,
- Tianon
4096R / B42F 6819 007F 00F8 8E36 4FD4 036A 9C25 BF35 7DD4
On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 at 08:00, Folkert Meeuw
wrote:
>
> I tried also,
>
> sudo apt-get install debootstrap* --fix-missing
> Paket
severity 994950 wishlist
thanks
On Thu, 23 Sept 2021 at 11:12, Abraham Raji wrote:
> avronr@alucard:~$ debootstrap
> bash: debootstrap: command not found
The "debootstrap" command gets installed into "/usr/sbin" so you'll
need to either add that to your PATH, use an explicit full path
(/usr/sbin
On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 at 08:17, Tianon Gravi wrote:
> I'll be working on an updated build first thing tomorrow morning.
>
> (What I would suggest in the meantime and even generally is using
> either "buster" or "bullseye" explicitly instead of the "stable&
On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 at 00:17, Hideki Yamane wrote:
> It is because debian:stable docker image's setting: it is still
> old style "stable/updates", instead of "stable-security" for security
> updates(*).
> [snip]
> Do you know When it will update to bullseye?
I'll be working on an updated buil
Hey Arnaud, thanks for the CC (and sorry for the delay).
On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 at 20:48, Arnaud Rebillout wrote:
> > Originally, ".dockerenv" was for transmitting the environment
> > variables of the container across the container boundary -- I would
> > not recommend relying on its existence ei
On Thu, 12 Mar 2020 at 18:27, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> The latest batch of bug reports filed by Johannes 'josch' Schauer seems
> to confirm my initial assessment: this will break (too) many use cases
> (#953404, #953588, #953593, #953594, #953617).
+1, thanks (to you both) for doing this -- my fi
On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 11:12, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> The following patch fixes issues when the hard-coded
> PATH=/sbin:/usr/sbin:/bin:/usr/bin does not contain chroot or other
> commonly used utilities, by changing to PATH=$PATH:/sbin:...
Do you think it would make sense to instead use "/usr/b
On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 at 13:03, Hideki Yamane wrote:
> + if [ ! -f "$TARGET/etc/mtab" ]; then
> + if [ -L "$TARGET/proc/self" ]; then
> + cd "$TARGET/etc" && ln -s ../proc/self/mounts
> mtab
> + elif [ -f "$TARG
On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 at 08:19, Ian Campbell wrote:
> Seems like the RC bug against debootstrap which Paul mentioned should
> be opened (to be closed by some future upload of debootstrap with this
> MR merged)then. Otherwise the package can migrate before the required
> review + merge has happened.
Package: debootstrap
Version: 1.0.102
Severity: serious
Justification: https://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2018/06/msg00238.html
See the conversation around/following [1] for more context.
[1]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2018/06/msg00175.html
The TLDR is that the previous version of d
On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 at 02:43, Paul Gevers wrote:
> It would be nice if you responded to this idea of Ansgar, as the
> regression in debuerreotype is currently delaying the migration of
> debootstrap. Is the new behavior of debootstrap really bad for
> debuerreotype or is it just resulting in a dif
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 at 10:00, Tianon Gravi wrote:
> Instead of stretch simply defaulting to non-merged-usr, it's now
> _blacklisted_ from merged-usr, even if I explicitly specify
> "--merged-usr", right? Is that the intended implementation here?
If the attached patch is
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 at 07:43, Tianon Gravi wrote:
> Update is dput now -- should show up (and get re-tested) soonish. :)
It just dawned on me that this upload possibly won't actually fix the failure.
Instead of stretch simply defaulting to non-merged-usr, it's now
_blacklisted_ fr
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 at 07:31, Tianon Gravi wrote:
> Ah, which is exactly what I did in [1], but the 0.7 release isn't
> uploaded to Debian yet -- I'll do that ASAP to fix this regression. :)
Update is dput now -- should show up (and get re-tested) soonish. :)
Thanks! (and than
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 at 02:23, Hideki Yamane wrote:
> > debootstrap should default to non-merged-usr for stretch, but it should
> > be possible to enable merged-usr via the command-line parameter to avoid
> > the regression in debuerreotype.
> ...
> We can use "--no-merged-usr" and "--merged-usr"
On Wed, 16 May 2018 at 12:47, Tianon Gravi wrote:
> I think an appropriate fix would be for debuerreotype to simply
> unilaterally remove "/run/mount/utab" (and then "/run/mount" if it's
empty)
> to re-achieve reproducibility across different debootstrap vers
On Tue, 15 May 2018 at 14:50, Tianon Gravi wrote:
> Given how this got mangled, I've attached a plain-text version of the diff
> here.
I think an appropriate fix would be for debuerreotype to simply
unilaterally remove "/run/mount/utab" (and then "/run/mount&quo
On Tue, 15 May 2018 at 14:49, Tianon Gravi wrote:
> | @@ -160,16 +160,14 @@
> | drwxr-xr-x 0000 2017-01-01 00:00:00.00
opt/
> | drwxr-xr-x 0000 2016-11-27 18:29:38.00
> proc/
> | drwx-- 000
On Tue, 15 May 2018 at 06:11, Paul Gevers wrote:
> This e-mail is meant to trigger prompt direct communication between the
> maintainers of the involved packages as one party has insight in what
> changed and the other party insight in what is being tested. Please
> therefore get in touch with eac
On 19 June 2017 at 13:39, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> The official installer does not include non-free, so if your wifi requires
> that, you will have to supply the firmware on a usb key or something when
> the installer needs it, or by using a non-free installer image instead
> (which probably only
On 13 June 2017 at 12:16, christophe blamart wrote:
> Subject: debootstrap --variant=minbase don't install apt-get on chroot
I'm not a debootstrap maintainer, but just to clarify, are you asking
that debootstrap _not_ install "apt-get", or reporting a bug that you
used it and it _didn't_?
If the
On 19 November 2016 at 16:08, Philipp Kern wrote:
> I saw the followup thread between Tianon and Philip and thought that a
> proper patch had been identified. Otherwise I would've went, mea
> culpa'ed and uploaded a fix. I didn't realize that it still wasn't
> uploaded, sorry about that. :(
Apolo
On 15 November 2016 at 15:36, Philip Hands wrote:
> This seems to have resulted from the recent change to bootstrap-base to
> allow the script to be specified only as the codename, but which is not
> checking whether the debconf variable is actually set.
>
> This commit should therefore fix the pr
On 27 October 2016 at 12:09, Philipp Kern wrote:
> Yeah this feels fairly straightforward. I just applied the change to git
> and it should be in the next upload. (Currently we're in the middle of a
> release, though.)
Rock on! Please give me a prod if there's anything more I can do to help. :)
On 4 December 2015 at 04:13, Matthijs Kooijman wrote:
> Apparently the path isn't escaped properly when passing it to sed. I
> haven't tried fixing it, or seeing if there are other problems, though.
I took a look, and there were actually quite a few places, but with
the attached patch, `DEBOOTSTR
On 12 October 2015 at 15:38, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Instead of increasing this list even further, wouldn't it be better to
> simply rely on /etc/os-release and actually remove most of
> /usr/lib/os-probes/mounted/90linux-distro ?
See also #794409 for a bug/patch that adds os-release support (whic
On 28 May 2015 at 14:26, Tianon Gravi wrote:
> Yeah, that'll work if you run it from within the scripts directory,
> but the left-hand-side's value doesn't actually matter and gets stored
> in the symlink as-is, so I gave the one-liner from the repo root
> perspective
On 28 May 2015 at 14:10, Geert Stappers wrote:
> Mmm, I would expect something like
>
>ln -s gutsy wily
>
>
> So 'gutsy' and 'wily' in the same directory.
Yeah, that'll work if you run it from within the scripts directory,
but the left-hand-side's value doesn't actually matter and gets stored
Package: debootstrap
Version: 1.0.70
Severity: wishlist
I'd attach a patch, but for a symlink it's going to be longer than just
mentioning that the fix is "ln -s gutsy scripts/wily". :)
(I've tested via the "script" parameter that this actually works, too FWIW.)
♥,
- Tianon
4096R / B42F 6819 0
On 28 April 2015 at 02:01, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> I cannot exclude an essential package on the debootstrap
> command line, e.g.
I think this is technically a duplicate of #557322 and even #774751, right?
♥,
- Tianon
4096R / B42F 6819 007F 00F8 8E36 4FD4 036A 9C25 BF35 7DD4
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
On 13 April 2015 at 18:23, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Oh, it sounds better if there's an improvement between identified
> versions! I'm not sure what's responsible for it out of the blue, but
> I'll happily focus on other things at the moment. ;)
I _think_ it was that "-f" was added to the invocati
On 13 April 2015 at 18:18, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Reinstall with btrfs (already reported as successful by Tianon on IRC,
> cc'd to make sure):
Indeed, I confirm that I tested a completely clean install of btrfs
without issue on RC2 and that I also did a full install on ext4, then
reinstalled ri
On 23 September 2014 15:24, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> That being said, squeeze is EOL, so I don't see us update apt-setup
> there…
Sorry, I suppose squeeze-lts is a bad example. Perhaps doing
debootstrap with the intention of having a chroot of wheezy + wheezy
security is a better example? Right
On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 11:39:28 -0700 Josh Triplett wrote:
> debootstrap currently only supports a single mirror. For testing
> initial install scenarios with modified packages, it would help greatly
> to have support for an additional mirror, to allow pointing at a Debian
> mirror for the majority
On Wed, 26 Mar 2014 06:32:06 + Tianon Gravi wrote:
> I've attached a patch that allows $4 (script) to be either an absolute
> path or a path/file within /usr/share/debootstrap/scripts, so that
> values like "sid" or "wheezy" can be supplied a
On Wed, 26 Mar 2014 05:51:28 + Tianon Gravi wrote:
> I've attached a patch that makes either of these values work as expected
> by prepending "/usr/share/debootstrap/scripts" if the given value exists
> within that directory, and only throwing a warning if the value
ither an absolute
path or a path/file within /usr/share/debootstrap/scripts, so that
values like "sid" or "wheezy" can be supplied as the "script" argument
and DWIM.
Here's some proposed d/changelog text:
[ Tianon Gravi ]
* Allow "script" argument
by prepending "/usr/share/debootstrap/scripts" if the given value exists
within that directory, and only throwing a warning if the value given
either isn't an absolute path that exists or isn't inside the
debootstrap scripts directory.
My proposed d/changelog update is as fol
41 matches
Mail list logo
