Sysop: | Amessyroom |
---|---|
Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
Users: | 42 |
Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
Uptime: | 00:26:45 |
Calls: | 220 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 824 |
Messages: | 121,519 |
Posted today: | 6 |
choose-mirror is the d-i component responsible for presenting users
with a list of available mirrors from which packages can be installed.
The list it provides is periodically updated based on the "masterlist" maintained by the Mirrors Team.
I'd like to suggest that we get in the habit of updating the choose-
mirror package more often, in order to provide a more current mirror
list to d-i users. Most changes to the package consist of updates to
the mirror list, or to translations of the included Debconf templates.
Assuming that people are happy with the idea, a few questions on how we
go about it:
- Would it be preferred that updates follow the usual path of an upload
to unstable followed by backports to stable and (when supported)
oldstable? I've presumed that d-i won't have any issues with ~debXuY
versions for udeb packages.
- From the Release Team side, would people want p-u bugs filing each
time, or could choose-mirror be considered to have a semi-permanent exception?
Opinions / objections / octopuses welcome.
- From the Release Team side, would people want p-u bugs filing eachbarriers as possible for this. If problems arise (doubtful) we can always revise.
time, or could choose-mirror be considered to have a semi-permanent exception?
From an SRM point of view, it seems eminently sensible to have as few
Opinions / objections / octopuses welcome.
Hi Adam,
Adam D. Barratt <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk> (2024-08-14):
[...]I'd like to suggest that we get in the habit of updating the
choose-mirror package more often, in order to provide a more
current mirror list to d-i users. Most changes to the package
consist of updates to the mirror list, or to translations of the
included Debconf templates.
I'm not sure which version to start from (current version in stable
or an initial backport from unstable — unless there's a compelling
reason for the latter, I'd rather go for the former, having had 0
looks at all at this point), but it seems to me we could just
increment the version in stable, independently from what's happening
(or not) in unstable?
I've also prepared 2.111+deb11u1, but not yet uploaded it as the
debdiff ends up as:
Mirrors.masterlist | 4444 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------
debian/changelog | 7
2 files changed, 1394 insertions(+), 3057 deletions(-)
The diff doesn't obviously look crazy, but it is clear that the
current package in bullseye is from before the masterlist repository
served as an input for the mirror-status system, which then produces
the published version of Mirrors.masterlist. That accounts for a
chunk of the diff, together with 3 years worth of data changes.