Hi all, On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 06:01:13 +0200 Johannes Schauer <jo...@debian.org> wrote: > Quoting Cyril Brulebois (2017-06-24 20:23:25) > > Julien Cristau <jcris...@debian.org> (2016-09-12): > > > This is a transient situation because some Essential packages' > > > dependencies changed. I'd consider this a bug in the archive, not in > > > debootstrap. > > Any reasons to keep this bug report open then? Seen no objections, so I'm > > tempted to close it. > > But... the buildd variant still explicitly (and not only implicitly through > dependencies of essential:yes packages) installs Priority:required packages, > no?
as we are at the beginning of the trixie development cycle, I have opened a merge request against debootstrap which avoids installing priority:required packages with the buildd variant: https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/debootstrap/-/merge_requests/106#note_430035 I've put Ansgar and Julien in CC as they were opposed to this change. I'm putting Luca and Guillem in CC who wrote in favour of this change also in policy bug #1029831. Santiago is in CC as the driver of the mass bug filing for source packages that fail to build in a chroot environment with just Essential:yes and build-essential installed. According to the last MBF from December 2022 and January 2023, there are 13 source packages that would FTBFS after this change because they are missing an explicit build dependency on tzdata or mount. As part of the thread starting at 9b40f6f2-4942-acfc-2f9c-4668f05d9...@debian.org a number of arguments were made for and against this change. I still believe that the arguments for this change weigh stronger than those against it and thus I filed that merge request above. Luca, as the debootstrap maintainer, what are your thoughts? Thank you! cheers, josch
signature.asc
Description: signature
