Hi,

The fix for #619146 "Should not attempt to mirror debian-installer for
squeeze-updates" has accidentally widened the regexp of dists that omit
a debian-installer section a little too far.

Whilst squeeze-updates and successors do not have a debian-installer
section, Ubuntu's *-updates do.

Sidenote: the hardcoded excludes for Ubuntu breezy at this location in
the code can be dropped: breezy-{security,updates} does actually have a
debian-installer section:
http://old-releases.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/breezy-security/main/debian-installer/

If someone who uses Ubuntu would like to provide a patch for this;
I'd really prefer that debmirror not need to maintain a list of every
Ubuntu release codename, which the code as currently written would need.

I don't have time to deal with Ubuntu issues in debmirror myself.

Noted and removed, thanks.

It looks like all the dists currently on ftp.debian.org have a
main/debian-installer section.  And according to a comment in another
debmirror bug (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=576576#20),
debmirror doesn't complain if a section is missing.

It seems like it would be appropriate to simply remove the check for
dist name containing -updates.  Patch attached.

Steve Atwell wrote:

Given the volume of bug reports I get about people seeing debmirror try
to mirror d-i images for suites that don't have them, I think it must
blow up in some circumstances. I cannot find a single bug report that
explains how, but see #619146 #636627 #637457

Hello, Max. Hello, Steve. My name is Thaddeus Black.
I am adopting maintenance of Debian's package debmirror
in place of the late Frans Pop and the retired
Joey Hess.

During 2012, Max reported bug 619361 against debmirror:

Steve followed with a patch and this observation:

However, as Frans had noted two years earlier in
[https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=581013#10],
what Steve observed is not necessarily always the case.
Thus, it would seem that Steve's patch cannot be
applied.

Joey is smarter than I am, and he did not seem to know
how to fix this bug. Moreover, Joey was as wary of
being drafted into Ubuntu maintenance as I am. (We
don't use Ubuntu and lack time to maintain it.)

Still, Debian would rather not be the cause of Ubuntu
bugs.

I have set up a mock archive with a
main/debian-installer/binary-amd64 but no
main/debian-installer/binary-i386. As far as I can
tell, the current debmirror behaves no differently
against the mock archive for the one architecture than
for the other in this case. Moreover, the current
debmirror does not seem to evince Max's bug in either
case. The most likely explanation for this is that I do
not understand the bug!

Feel free to explain more, if this bug is still
relevant to you.

One gets the feeling that fixing this bug will not be
trivial. Someone who cares about Ubuntu may have to
delve into this, to come up with a clean solution that
fixes Ubuntu's problem while improving, rather than
merely hacking, debmirror's code and behavior with
respect to Debian proper.

If you would like to set up my mock archive on your
machine, so that you can prove the bug against it to
show me more clearly, exactly what the problem is, let
me know.

Thanks.