On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 01:09:21AM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > Julian Andres Klode <j...@debian.org> (2025-01-21): > > Roland Clobus <rclo...@rclobus.nl> schrieb am Di., 21. Jan. 2025, 23:11: > > > The new version of apt (2.9.24) will now cause a FTBFS for the daily > > > d-i. This has been noticed already in the daily live ISO images > > > based on sid. > > > > That sounds like nonsense. I've added Notices, they are only shown in > > interactive use in the apt(8) command which is not involved anywhere > > in the process, and they are not fatal either way. > > Maybe it's nonsense but I'm seeing a new failure for `æpt-get update`: > > E: Method gave invalid 400 URI Failure message: List of files can't be > created as > '/home/kibi/debian-installer/installer/build/apt.udeb/etc/apt/trusted.gpg.d/' > is not a directory > > and that indeed breaks d-i builds. > > Looking at the few commits between 2.9.23 and 2.9.24 suggests > 6f618323d2d1cea47df0952a9ed2cebcda6c7193 might trigger this, but I'm not > going to spend time on this right now, especially if
This is fine and it makes some sense, but it's unrelated to the matter
being discussed here. And let me assure you, I combed through the logs of the
failing builds and all I see is:
P: building the debian-installer
building build_cdrom_gtk failed, see log file dest/build_cdrom_gtk.log
for details
building build_cdrom_isolinux failed, see log file
dest/build_cdrom_isolinux.log for details
grep: ./dest//MANIFEST.udebs: No such file or directory
cp: cannot stat 'chroot/debian-installer/build/dest/cdrom/vmlinuz': No
such file or directory
and then it starts failing to rsync some fails.
So there is no evidence to substantiate that theory, so I need to
dismiss is as "unsubstantiated wild take" as happens all the time
when people blame apt for anything apt adjecent, like hooks hanging,
postinsts crashing, or their network being misconfigured.
> what we're getting is name calling…
That's not true at all. I don't know what your exposure to debate
culture is, but I can explain:
Starting with, there are three levels at which you can debate:
1. the matter itself (the other argument is nonsense)
^ this is what I commented on, providing evidence to substantiate the claim
2. the position from which the argument is made (the APT maintainer)
3. the person who made the argument (Julian)
^ this is where name calling would be at
I don't know your background, but my general set of guidelines and
expectations for the style of debate follows the established rules
of the British parliament: Personal attacks are taboo, and discussions
should be on the merit of the matter being discussed.
Taken together we end up with some examples of what kind of statements
are acceptable and which are not:
- "This is nonsense, there is no evidence supporting this claim"
is an acceptable statement questioning the merit of the claim.
- "The APT maintainer is saying nonsense, there is no evidence"
remains acceptable as it makes the argument at a level of position
and doesn't attack the person.
- "Julian is saying nonsense" is not acceptable as, while it questions
the merit of the argument, it does so at a personal level.
- "The APT maintainer is stupid" is not acceptable because it does not
question the merit of the matter. It is not a personal attack, since
it only attacks the position, but could still be considered impertinent.
- "Julian is stupid" is clearly a personal attack and not acceptable.
--
debian developer - deb.li/jak | jak-linux.org - free software dev
ubuntu core developer i speak de, en
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
