On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 7:40 AM Sérgio Basto <sergio@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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 . > Unfortunately, I *do* use it occasionally when working on Linux distros that use apt-rpm, as only apt-rpm can process their repo metadata. There are still a few out there that use it. That said, Fedora's apt config package should probably be retired. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! _______________________________________________ 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
