Control: reassign 924401 base-passwd,base-files
Control: clone 924401 -1
Control: reassign -1 Essential packages only provide functionality after being
configured
Control: tags -1 patch
Hi all,
Trimming the recipient list to just the relevant maintainers and those who
proposed and (I believe)
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 04:51:11PM +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> Since dpkg will not prevent upgrading of other packages while an
> ``essential`` package is in an unconfigured state, all ``essential``
> packages must supply all of their core functionality even when
> -unconfigured. If the
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 04:51:11PM +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> Since dpkg will not prevent upgrading of other packages while an
> ``essential`` package is in an unconfigured state, all ``essential``
> packages must supply all of their core functionality even when
> -unconfigured. If the
Hi Santiago,
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 11:58:12AM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> blame for such bug, is annoying me. (So, Helmut, please file a bug
> in the bootstrapping tool which does not work for you, and do not
> try to fix it here).
I refuse the view that multistrap is buggy. You cite
> > In a practical level, because you already see what happens when
> > you configure any package which uses users defined in /etc/passwd
> > without a minimal /etc/passwd in place. Again in a practical level,
> > once we know it, we can't pretend that we don't know it.
>
> That's what the
Hi!
On Fri, 2019-03-15 at 00:37:33 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Maybe, but this is neither a new miscellaneous file nor a new
> bootstrapping action. This is yet another bootstrapping tool
> forgetting the lessons learned from the other bootstrapping tools.
My impression though is that the
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 10:37:46AM +, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 10:21:30 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > The reason I'm often asked to add hacks to base-files.postinst is only
> > that base-files is usually configured in the second place
>
> I think it's also fair to say
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 07:50:27AM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> > I would certainly consider a lot cleaner to add a new field to base-files in
> > the form "Bootstrap-Depends: base-passwd" than converting all chowns in
> > postinst to use integer numbers.
>
> I agree that we should not expect
On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 10:21:30 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> The reason I'm often asked to add hacks to base-files.postinst is only
> that base-files is usually configured in the second place
I think it's also fair to say that base-files is exactly a collection of
the miscellaneous files and
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 07:50:27AM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> I agree that we should not expect maintainers to write numeric user and group
> ids into their maintainer scripts. This is not only hard to write but also
> hard
> to read and maintain. In my opinion, using numeric ids should
Hi Santiago,
Quoting Santiago Vila (2019-03-13 13:50:11)
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 01:15:02PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> > I'm not advocating for doing "hacks here and there so that bootstrapping
> > tools
> > work properly" as you put it but that we think about the question of whether
> >
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 01:15:02PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> I'm not advocating for doing "hacks here and there so that bootstrapping tools
> work properly" as you put it but that we think about the question of whether
> maybe there is a better way to populate an empty directory with
Hi Santiago,
Quoting Santiago Vila (2019-03-12 23:43:02)
> > > Do any of them still don't know that base-passwd should be configured
> > > first because otherwise any other package using root (be it base-files or
> > > any other) will fail? I think this was already settled in the last
> > >
Hi!
On Tue, 2019-03-12 at 16:17:10 +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> Package: base-passwd,base-files,debian-policy
>
> Debian policy section 3.8 says:
> | Essential is defined as the minimal set of functionality that must be
> | available and usable on the system at all times, even when packages
> |
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 07:30:21PM +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> > Do any of them still don't know that base-passwd should be configured
> > first because otherwise any other package using root (be it base-files
> > or any other) will fail? I think this was already settled in the last
> >
Hi Santiago,
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 06:17:50PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> To be precise: Who is unpacking (but not configuring) a buster or
> unstable essential package set, if not a bootstrapping tool?
multistrap is doing just that.
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 04:17:10PM +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> Package: base-passwd,base-files,debian-policy
>
> Debian policy section 3.8 says:
>
> | Essential is defined as the minimal set of functionality that must be
> | available and usable on the system at all times, even when packages
>
It would probably be good for the overall robustness of the system if
we try to solve this from multiple angles.
On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 at 16:17:10 +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> A. /etc/passwd is part of base-passwd's interface and base-files is
>right in relying on it working at all times. Then
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 04:17:10PM +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> Package: base-passwd,base-files,debian-policy
>
> Debian policy section 3.8 says:
>
> | Essential is defined as the minimal set of functionality that must be
> | available and usable on the system at all times, even when packages
>
Package: base-passwd,base-files,debian-policy
Debian policy section 3.8 says:
| Essential is defined as the minimal set of functionality that must be
| available and usable on the system at all times, even when packages
| are in the “Unpacked” state.
When unpacking (but not configuring) a
20 matches
Mail list logo
