Wookey writes ("Bug#557730: /etc/{protocols,network,services} not schroot's to
scribble over"):
> 2) netbase could be installed in base chroots then the problem would not
> arise (or only arise once).
>
> The problem here is that chroots can be made by many tools, and the
> usual tools (debootstrap and mmdebstrap) do not put netbase in by
> default. It would be very easy to make sbuild-createchroot just add
> --include=netbase to the invocation, and I'm not sure there is any
> real downside to doing that? Documenting the reason for including this
> package so that people using other tools to make chroots know it's a
> good idea would also be easy and helpful.
A downside is that missing build-dependencies on netbase would no
longer be detected. One alternative would be to declare netbase
build-essential. TBH I'm not sure why that hasn't been done already.
I have a 4th option:
scroot could create this file by installing and then removing (but not
purging) a fake netbase.deb ("Version: 0~~). Then, when the new
netbase appears, the usual conffile mechanism would DTRT, since the
file would not have been "locally created" (or indeed "locally
modified").
The fake netbase.deb could be contained within schroot.deb, in
/usr/share, so schroot wouldn't need to gain runtime build-deps on
dpkg tooling.
> Whilst having the passwd database reflected in the chroot is
> incredibly useful it's not clear how often the services and protocols
> are needed, but I assume people do find that functionality useful.
I had a package that failed its build-time tests due to lack of
/etc/protocols. The missing build-dep was detected in the buildds,
because my own local sid build chroot has netbase installed, precisely
because of this bug.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
Pronouns: they/he. If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk,
that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
