Re: Trixie

Cyril Brulebois <[email protected]> Thu, 26 Dec 2024 02:20:36 +0100

Newsgroups	gmane.linux.debian.devel.cd
Organization	Debian
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

Philip Hands <[email protected]> (2024-12-25):
> We could just make a similar check in debian-cd, and bail-out when the
> configured ABI does not match the available one.
> 
> That would at least reduce the chances that people get to download
> images that are bound to fail.

I mentioned having a check on this earlier this month when proposing a
solution to a different problem (udebs for various kernel ABIs being all
shipped):

  https://lists.debian.org/debian-cd/2024/12/msg00008.html

That would make sense to me.

> If we wanted to keep building working images during periods of
> kernel-skew, I'd imagine that one of these approaches might well
> provide inspiration.

The branch2repo thing solves the following problem: something referenced
in the source code went away, and it replaces it with something else.

Building d-i from scratch is what is done on the live side (see the
discussion earlier this week). On the single arch it supports (at the
moment).

The problem on the debian-cd side is different. It uses a d-i daily
build that it has no control over, which might need matching udebs that
bad luck went away between the d-i build and the debian-cd one. You
can't get those back (unless you consider leveraging snapshot.d.o), and
I'm pretty sure you don't want debian-cd@ to try and rebuild d-i.

Finally, d-i builds with an unsigned kernel doesn't make sense to me in
this day and age. Netinst builds even less so.


Cheers,
-- 
Cyril Brulebois ([email protected])            <https://debamax.com/>
D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)