Re: Bug#562143: apt is no longer in base system created by debootstrap?
Hi, Frans Pop schrieb: Right, and existing tools depend on the fact that it has always been tagged Build-Essential. You can argue about changing that, but if you do you will also need to agree on a transition period. debootstrap has been fixed and that is why I am closing this bug report now. Cheers, Torsten -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4ba4aba1.4000...@debian.org
Re: Bug#562143: apt is no longer in base system created by debootstrap?
Julien Cristau schrieb: -- Daniel Schepler schep...@debian.org Wed, 10 Mar 2004 02:29:27 -0800 I'm not sure how that can qualify as new. Compared to some code in dak it is coming from the future. ;-) The Build-Essential: yes field has been updated 2 months ago to better match the declared Depends in the package build-essential as requested in bug #548801. Cheers, Torsten -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Bug#562143: apt is no longer in base system created by debootstrap?
Torsten Werner wrote: The Build-Essential: yes field has been updated 2 months ago to better match the declared Depends in the package build-essential as requested in bug #548801. It seems there is a misunderstanding about the purpose of the Build-Essential flag then. Obviously it is not to tag packages that are dependencies of the build-essential meta package. That would make the flag rather redundant as you'd get the same effect by just installing build-essentials. The real purpose is that it should contain any packages that are not essential themselves, but are required to set up a working base system for a buildd. From that perspective apt should be tagged Build-Essential. Simply because without apt you don't have a working build system. And build-essential should of course also be tagged, but IMO *not* any packages on which build-essential already depends. Cheers, FJP -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Bug#562143: apt is no longer in base system created by debootstrap?
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 01:39:28PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote: Torsten Werner wrote: The Build-Essential: yes field has been updated 2 months ago to better match the declared Depends in the package build-essential as requested in bug #548801. It seems there is a misunderstanding about the purpose of the Build-Essential flag then. Obviously it is not to tag packages that are dependencies of the build-essential meta package. That would make the flag rather redundant as you'd get the same effect by just installing build-essentials. Right, the list I gave in the bug report should be more than enough, I see no reason to have others in that list. From that perspective apt should be tagged Build-Essential. Simply because without apt you don't have a working build system. apt is not and never was needed to build a package and therefor is not build essential. The buildds never required apt to be in the chroots until recently. Having apt in the chroot however has always been handy. The debootstrap buildd variant should probably add that, just like it should probably add sudo and/or fakeroot and debfoster. It's not something that belongs in the Packages file. I'm also not sure why pbuilder, cowbuilder or whatever should use the buildd variant, they're not buildds. Maybe debootstrap needs a build-essential variant and they should use that and add the packages that they need. And maybe we should do the same for the buildd chroot creation script. And build-essential should of course also be tagged, but IMO *not* any packages on which build-essential already depends. That can be argued about, but I don't see the need. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Bug#562143: apt is no longer in base system created by debootstrap?
On Sunday 27 December 2009, Kurt Roeckx wrote: On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 01:39:28PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote: From that perspective apt should be tagged Build-Essential. Simply because without apt you don't have a working build system. apt is not and never was needed to build a package and therefor is not build essential. The buildds never required apt to be in the chroots until recently. Having apt in the chroot however has always been handy. Right, and existing tools depend on the fact that it has always been tagged Build-Essential. You can argue about changing that, but if you do you will also need to agree on a transition period. Because it is completely valid to e.g. have use Lenny's cowbuilder for a sid build environment, the current change breaks those tools. Modifying the tools in unstable will only fix the issue for people already running unstable or testing. IMO the correct action for now is to revert the changes. Then agree on how things should look in the future and give the relevant packages notice (via BRs and/or d-d-a) so they can adjust for Squeeze. Then when Sqeeze has been released for some time, the Build-Essential tags could be changed. The debootstrap buildd variant should probably add that, just like it should probably add sudo and/or fakeroot and debfoster. It's not something that belongs in the Packages file. Personally I think adding apt in debootstrap would be OK (especially as the minbase variant also includes apt). However, any other tools should IMO be installed in the chroot by the tools that require them, not by debootstrap. I'm also not sure why pbuilder, cowbuilder or whatever should use the buildd variant, they're not buildds. Probably because the buildd variant is a natural fit for creating package build environments. I see no reason why it should be limited to only official buildds. Maybe debootstrap needs a build-essential variant and they should use that and add the packages that they need. I don't see any need for an extra variant in debootstrap. I agree with the last part of the sentence. Cheers, FJP -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
