On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 12:42:27PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > El 28/9/23 a las 11:50, Julien Cristau escribió: > > I still think that is absolutely the wrong thing to do, and makes > > debootstrap more fragile for no good reason. > > Julien, I believe you are mixing two different things here. > > (A) What this bug is really about. > > (B) What the effect of the bug is. > > The bug (A) is that debootstrap, being the tool used to create chroots > to build packages, has the responsibility of ensuring that > the chroot is composed by build-essential packages only, and it > should try hard not to install packages which are not build-essential. > I guess more than mixing two different things I disagree that that is debootstrap's responsibility, and so I disagree that that is a valid bug. In my view it's more important for debootstrap to reliably be able to create chroots than some sort of philosophical purity about what is included in said chroot. Package priorities are how the archive tells debootstrap which packages to install, and so since I don't see your (A) as a bug, I'm saying if there's a bug it's (B) and belongs with the archive.
I also think your argument, even if I went along with it, breaks down when the apt package gets included, since apt is clearly not build-essential, so by that logic we'd go back to the days where builds used the host system's apt instead of including it in the chroot. > In other words, the bug says that the algorithm followed by debootstrap > to determine which packages should be installed is *flawed*. > > Then there is the effect of the bug (B). The effect, obviously, > is that we end up having non-build-essential packages in a chroot > when using the buildd profile, which is definitely not ok. > > Why do you suggest that we fix only the effects of the bug but not > the bug itself? In other words: Why are you apparently mixing (A) and (B) > as if they were the same thing? > > True, the ftpmasters might change priorities so that debootstrap > does the right thing by default, but this would be "by pure chance", > as the algorithm would still be wrong. > > Even if they change the priorities today, it would suffice that > some day another essential package becomes non-essential but still required, > and then we would have to wait another seven years for debootstrap > to do the right thing again. > There's no reason that would need to take seven years, so I don't know what that point is about. Cheers, Julien
