On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 02:04:28AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote: > On Saturday 03 November 2007, dann frazier wrote: > > Here's an updated patch that implements Joey's suggestion of extending > > mirror/udeb/suite to support multiple suites. Again I've omitted the > > indention of the inner loop to make it clear what has changed. > > Has this been tested?
Damn - you had to ask that! Well, yes, it has been tested, but against the etch version of net-retriever. Let me test against the trunk.... .... yep, still works. > > * It doesn't solve the issue Frans highlighted about components > > coming from separate mirrors. A proper solution for that problem > > would probably involve letting users preseed with arbitrary sets of > > sources.list style entries, meaning components can be fetched from > > multiple types of media within one installation instance. That'd > > certainly be a better paradigm, but would require much more > > invasive changes. > > I don't really like the idea of leaving this open if we're going to make > changes here anyway. > > OTOH... > > + ? ?is available from multiple places, anna's current behavior is to use > > + ? ?the last one, not necessarily the one with the greatest version. > > This is completely broken of course if we want to use this for experimental > as that _can_ have older versions than the real suite being used. Yeah, anna could use improvement here; is there version comparison code in d-i somewhere already? > > Regarding the removal of this comment: > > -???????# Setting codename to a suite is not very nice, but can do no harm > > if ! db_get mirror/udeb/suite || [ -z "$RET" ]; then > > if [ -f /etc/udebs-source ]; then > > Note that what you are doing now is just the opposite: in the _default_ > situation the contents of /etc/udebs-source is used and that _is_ a > codename (set at D-I images build time). All the rest are the exceptions! > This should at least remain clear from the code or comments. Ok. I thought the comment was explaining that the variable named 'codename' was being abused to possibly include a non-codename, and that renaming the variable to 'udebsuites' solved that problem. But anyway, I agree it could use some clarifying comments. What I'm hearing is: Changes this patch needs: * comments around the suite selection bit * proper indention of the loop Additional changes we want: * anna version selection smarts * refactoring the nested loops into subroutines * deprecate m/u/suite for m/u/suites, providing backwards compatability Does that look accurate? -- dann frazier -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
