Bug#780994: flash-kernel: Missing dependency on u-boot-tools fails initramfs-tools to fail
On Tue, 2015-03-24 at 09:29 +0000, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 08:55:49AM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> >On Thu, 1970-01-01 at 00:49 +0000, Martin Stigge wrote:
> >> That's easily resolved by installing the u-boot-tools package, but I would
> >> have expected that do be a dependency in that case. I see that it's a
> >> Suggests, but looks rather essential to me.
> >
> >u-boot-tools is not a strict requirement for flash-kernel since it is
> >only needed on certain platforms, as expressed by the Required-Packages
> >field in the flash-kernel database.
> >
> >Debian Installer (via the flash-kernel-installer udeb) will process that
> >field and install what is needed but if you install things by hand (or
> >are using debootstrap etc) then you may need to do so manually.
> >
> >So, I don't think a hard depends would be the right answer. Perhaps
> >given that many boards do need u-boot-tools an upgrade to Recommends
> >might be in order, but my preference would be for f-k to learn to check
> >(at runtime and/or installation time) that the set of Required-Packages
> >are present and issue a warning/error, or at least to check that mkimage
> >is present before actually using it and printing an appropriate warning
> >otherwise.
>
> To be honest, why not just use the packaging system metadata and stop
> trying to reinvent it badly? We've had bugs like this reported for
> ages, and it's not doing our users any favours. Just add it as a
> Recommends and be done. It's not like the u-boot-tools package is huge
> or brings in a lot of other dependencies anyway...
TBH I was moistly just following the lead of whoever did it that way
originally. I think you've convinced me to make it at least a
Recommends.
Ian.
Reply to: