On Tue, 2019-02-19 at 08:21 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > 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. Out of curiosity , what distro ? they have any update ? i.e. [1] last version is dated on 12-Jan-2008 ... seems a little old to me , anddon't see any update ... [1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/apt/blob/master/f/apt.spec http://apt-rpm.org/testing/ > -- > 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! -- 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
