Re: Ditch RPM in favor of DPKG

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 12:16 PM Sérgio Basto <sergio@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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 ...
>

ALT Linux and PCLinuxOS are two that use apt-rpm.

There's _slightly_ more life (but not much) in the Git repo for
apt-rpm: https://gitlab.com/apt-rpm/apt-rpm


-- 
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




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux