On Tue, 2019-02-19 at 11:03 +0100, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote: > Greetings packagers, > > I know how important RPM is to the Fedora Project, but it breaks > everything downstream and we'd be better off using DPKG as we should > have from day one. > > I'm calling this initiative fedpkg: Fedora Embraces DPKG. > > A bit of background here: I build both RPMs and DEBs for $DAYJOB and > until recently my workflow was quite painful because I needed extra > steps > between git checkout and git push that involves a VM, because what we > ship as apt is in reality apt-rpm. > > It finally got enough on my nerves to locally build the things I > needed and > after a month I have already amortized my efforts with the time I > save not > having to deal with needless extra hoops. > > In order to successfully build debs on Fedora I needed 4 packages > that > I'm now submitting for review: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=gnu-config > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=strip-nondeterminism > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=sbuild > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=apt > > I need more than reviews here. > > Three of those packages are heavy on Perl code, and I'm not a Perl > Monk. I tried to CC perl-sig as per the guidelines [1] (also tried > with > the mailing list address) but bugzilla replied kindly: > > CC: perl-sig did not match anything > > Apt is a mix of C, Perl and C++ code, so I would be reassured if I > could have a C++ co-maintainer too. I'm only a C developer so if > something goes wrong outside of the C realm that would be helpful. > > Two of those packages should be runtime dependencies of debhelper. > > The current apt package should be renamed to apt-rpm, I will look up > the procedure for that to happen. I understand that when someone sees > they should run "apt-get install foo" somewhere on the web it's > helpful for non-savvy users that this JustWorks(tm) [2], but apt-rpm > is > dead upstream and it shouldn't be advertised as apt. > > I hope I CC'd everyone that should get this heads up, and hope to > find > help for the reviews and co-maintainership. The packaging does > nothing > fancy, there are quirks here and there but overall it was rather easy > to put together. And of course I would be happy to help with reviews > too in exchange. > > And thanks again to the mock developers, its design is so much better > than either sbuild or pdebuild that I barely have pain points left > when it > comes to RPM packaging. > > Thanks, > Dridi > > [1] > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Perl/#_perl_sig > [2] I'm not against apt-rpm in the base install for example TLDR , apt-rpm should be retired because nobody use it since more than 10 years . I maintain a lot of debian package in Fedora but apt-debian still not on Official repos you can get it from my devel corp repo [1] My goal is make a system where rpm produce deb files , to allow Debian migrate from deb to rpm . rpm is much more powerful than Debian IMHO . [1] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/sergiomb/debs/monitor/ I can build .deb packages in Fedora and download packages with apt- debian : debuild -i -us -uc -b -d from https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Creating_packages_for_other_distributions#Tips_and_tricks_2 You may also need to override dh_shlibdeps by adding the following lines to debian/rules: override_dh_shlibdeps: dh_shlibdeps --dpkg-shlibdeps-params=--ignore-missing-info and override_dh_strip_nondeterminism: >From [1] "I'd like propose retire this apt and fedora-package-config- apt". [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1462485 -- Sérgio M. B. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
