Dear Maintainer,

net-retriever pulls udeb packages from one sole suite
(the one registered in mirror/udeb/suite).

Non released architectures from www.debian-ports.org may store
some udebs in the suite 'unreleased' too. These are currently
neglected by net-retriever.

The patch below enables the use of both suites by net-retriever
on non released architectures. (A file 'port_architecture'
should be created previously by another package, e.g.
choose-mirror-bin. See #879130)

Regards,
JH Chatenet
--- a/net-retriever
+++ b/net-retriever
@@ -84,31 +84,9 @@
 	exit 1
 }

Hi,

jhcha54008 <jhcha54008@free.fr> (2017-10-19):

We still haven't managed to get around to merging support for backports
over the past few years, but I'd slightly prefer if we could merge it
first.

I only have a vague recollection, but ISTR net-retriever was only able
to perform installations from a single source, and I had to implement
merging Packages files from stable and stable-backports, which I don't
see in your proposed patch.


KiBi.

Didn't debian-installer add support for adding backports to the sources.list
during installation? I vaguely remember having seen such an option which
could be checked during installation.

But I assume that one merely set up backports for the target system to
be used after the installation without the possibility to pull backports
packages during installation.

I agree, that would be a sensible thing to do first.

Adrian

John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> (2017-10-20):

This is an apt-setup question, entirely unrelated to building d-i
against backports, which is most useful to get a more recent kernel.
(Then fetching extra udebs from backports as well.)

Exactly.


KiBi.

clone 879145 -1
retitle -1 backports support
thanks

Thank you for your answer. I can understand that you prioritize
backports support. Perhaps we should open a different bug report
to keep track of the discussion about backports support ?

debian-ports supports seems comparatively easier : there is no
udeb package overlap between the two suites 'unstable' and 'unreleased',
as far as I can see. Some packages in 'unreleased' are arch-specific
to a non released architecture - and so not in 'unstable'. And the
other packages didn't make their way to 'unstable' because they FTBFS -
modified versions were uploded to 'unreleased'.

Bonne fin d'année à tous !

Regards,
JH Chatenet


Le vendredi 20 octobre à 11h 32mn 29s (+0200), Cyril Brulebois a écrit :

jhcha54008 <jhcha54008@free.fr> (2017-12-30):

Provided your input, it looks like adding support for unreleased would
be trivial once we have backports support. As I said in my earlier mail,
let's see if we can make that happen during January. Pokes welcome if
you don't see anything move by the end of that month.

Season's greetings to you too!

Cheers,