On Tue, 2019-02-19 at 08:21 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 7:40 AM Sérgio Basto
<sergio(a)serjux.com>
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.