Re: bug 887830, was: Joliet name length in amd64 netinst versus DVD-2

2018-02-16 Thread Steve McIntyre
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 05:29:45PM +0100, Thomas Schmitt wrote: > >Now the next weakest point in Jigdo download is > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=887831 > "jigdo-file: Jigdo .template file and resulting ISO are only verified by MD5" > >jigdo-lite after fix of bug 865864 do

Re: bug 887830, was: Joliet name length in amd64 netinst versus DVD-2

2018-02-12 Thread Thomas Schmitt
Hi, i wrote: > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=887830 > > "debian-cd: *.jigdo files should be listed in the *SUMS files" Steve McIntyre: > ACK, it's a fairly simple fix to the debian-cd setup. I've pushed the > changes and if you check today's daily/weekly builds you'll see

Re: Joliet name length in amd64 netinst versus DVD-2

2018-02-12 Thread Steve McIntyre
On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 10:48:06AM +0100, Thomas Schmitt wrote: >Hi, > >Steve McIntyre wrote: >> Fixing it right now, thanks for the clear report! > >I did not want to open a bug without knowing more background. > > > >As y

Re: Joliet name length in amd64 netinst versus DVD-2

2018-02-10 Thread Thomas Schmitt
Hi, Steve McIntyre wrote: > I've got too used to the relaxed handling in xorriso. IIRC the tolerance of xorrisofs exists because genisoimage and mkisofs show it. It's contageous and each adoption possibly widens it. E.g. i did not check whether genisoimage refuses on some double-dash options but

Re: Joliet name length in amd64 netinst versus DVD-2

2018-02-10 Thread Steve McIntyre
On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 12:58:55PM +0100, Thomas Schmitt wrote: >Hi, > >looking at > > > https://salsa.debian.org/images-team/debian-cd/commit/6112370e0abf29018a5346467aaf27cf7cb8ba91 > "Ensure that in all places where we use -J we also use --joliet-long" > >i wonder whether it is wise to rely

Re: Joliet name length in amd64 netinst versus DVD-2

2018-02-10 Thread Thomas Schmitt
Hi, looking at https://salsa.debian.org/images-team/debian-cd/commit/6112370e0abf29018a5346467aaf27cf7cb8ba91 "Ensure that in all places where we use -J we also use --joliet-long" i wonder whether it is wise to rely on the undocumented double-dash tolerance of xorrisofs and genisoimage. Bo

Re: Joliet name length in amd64 netinst versus DVD-2

2018-02-10 Thread Thomas Schmitt
Hi, Steve McIntyre wrote: > Fixing it right now, thanks for the clear report! I did not want to open a bug without knowing more background. As you are in fixing mode, could you please look whether https://bugs.debia

Re: Joliet name length in amd64 netinst versus DVD-2

2018-02-09 Thread Steve McIntyre
On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 08:10:54PM +0100, Thomas Schmitt wrote: >Hi, > >debian-9.3.0-amd64-netinst.iso was made with xorrisofs option -joliet-long, >which enable Joliet names longer than 64 characters. >But production of debian-9.3.0-amd64-DVD-2.iso did not use it. > >Whatever setting is finally de

Joliet name length in amd64 netinst versus DVD-2

2018-02-09 Thread Thomas Schmitt
Hi, debian-9.3.0-amd64-netinst.iso was made with xorrisofs option -joliet-long, which enable Joliet names longer than 64 characters. But production of debian-9.3.0-amd64-DVD-2.iso did not use it. Whatever setting is finally desirable, it should be the same with all Debian ISOs which get a Joliet