[Idea] Debian User Repository? (Not simply mimicing AUR)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
103 messages Options
123456
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Idea] Debian User Repository? (Not simply mimicing AUR)

Roberto C. Sánchez-2
On Sun, Apr 07, 2019 at 09:36:25PM -0400, Peter Silva wrote:
>
>    OK for unstable and testing, but I want to provide packages for stable
>    versions of Debian using a separate repo that will be get frequent
>    updates, even though the OS is stable. I get that with [4]launchpad.net.
>    Your proposal makes no version ever available for a stable version.  yes,
>    it contradicts the meaning of stable, but the idea is similar to the idea
>    of using snaps, where certain applications require current versions, while
>    most of the OS remains a stable platform.  
>
Then I think that Ben Finney's observation is completely correct.

Regards,

-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sánchez

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Idea] Debian User Repository? (Not simply mimicing AUR)

Ben Finney-3
In reply to this post by Peter Silva
Peter Silva <[hidden email]> writes:

> […] the launchpad.net model, which supports backporting seamlesslly
> and allows to support the same version on all distro versions, works
> better for us. This is something a debian version of launchpad would
> get us.

How does it handle “seamlessly” changes that make a package incompatible
with the already-released Debian stable? If it doesn't handle that, is
it right to call that seamless?

If one needs to keep a close eye on changes to make sure they can still
be installed even on a years-old OS, the resulting packages can be
placed in a custom repository set up with the instructions at
<URL:https://wiki.debian.org/DebianRepository/Setup>. What am I missing?

--
 \         “I think Western civilization is more enlightened precisely |
  `\     because we have learned how to ignore our religious leaders.” |
_o__)                                                —Bill Maher, 2003 |
Ben Finney

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Idea] Debian User Repository? (Not simply mimicing AUR)

Peter Silva


On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 11:10 PM Ben Finney <[hidden email]> wrote:
Peter Silva <[hidden email]> writes:

> […] the launchpad.net model, which supports backporting seamlesslly
> and allows to support the same version on all distro versions, works
> better for us. This is something a debian version of launchpad would
> get us.

How does it handle “seamlessly” changes that make a package incompatible
with the already-released Debian stable? If it doesn't handle that, is
it right to call that seamless?


For the package in question, the changes are bug-fixes, 99% upward compatible.
so yes, you're right it can't be totally seamless, we have release notes to cover breakage events.
and other explicit communications.
 
If one needs to keep a close eye on changes to make sure they can still
be installed even on a years-old OS, the resulting packages can be
placed in a custom repository set up with the instructions at
<URL:https://wiki.debian.org/DebianRepository/Setup>. What am I missing?


yes, it can be done, but it is a lot more work for individual packagers.

launchpad.net combines:
   - very few clicks to build custom repositories.
   - a build environment for each OS, so that it runs "debuild" in the currently patched version of the OS for which the package it built.

It saves people from having to build their own custom repository, and from having to maintain a build environment for all supported OS versions and architectures.  on Ubuntu,  packages are built for 14.04, 16,04, 18.04, 18.10, 19.04, and I get all those just from clicking one box for each one. I think it also propagates re-building of packages when a build-dependency changes, without my knowledge or interaction.  It leverages the ubuntu build-farm for third-party packages.

With debian, it's kind of all or nothing.  Etiher you're in Debian, and it gets built on every platform using the build farm, or it's not, so you get no help at all. Launchpad gives a nice middle road that suits us right now, and if something similar were available for debian, it would provide a stepping stone to being in Debian proper.


--
 \         “I think Western civilization is more enlightened precisely |
  `\     because we have learned how to ignore our religious leaders.” |
_o__)                                                —Bill Maher, 2003 |
Ben Finney

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Idea] Debian User Repository? (Not simply mimicing AUR)

Ben Finney-3
Peter Silva <[hidden email]> writes:

> On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 11:10 PM Ben Finney <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > If one needs to keep a close eye on changes to make sure they can
> > still be installed even on a years-old OS, the resulting packages
> > can be placed in a custom repository set up with the instructions at
> > <URL:https://wiki.debian.org/DebianRepository/Setup>. What am I
> > missing?

> yes, it can be done, but it is a lot more work for individual
> packagers.

Sure. And, on the other hand, providing an APT repository for arbitrary
packages of unknown copyright status is also a lot of work to expect
disinterested volunteers to do without motivation.

So it sounds like you know of at least enough individual developers that
you have a group motivated to maintain an unofficial APT repository.

That seems like an appropriate model: groups who want to make unofficial
packages available can put in the sys-admin effort to run an unofficial
APT repository with the existing tools.

The Debian project does not (and, I believe, should not) need to be the
home of third-party unofficial repositories; the tools to provide those
are already in the hands of anyone who wants to provide them.

> With debian, it's kind of all or nothing. Etiher you're in Debian, and
> it gets built on every platform using the build farm, or it's not, so
> you get no help at all.

That doesn't seem accurate. Have people tried setting up an APT
repository and got “no help at all”? Does the maintenance of the
packages to run an APT repository, and instructions on how to do it, not
count as help in doing that?

> Launchpad gives a nice middle road that suits us right now,
> and if something similar were available for debian, it would provide a
> stepping stone to being in Debian proper.

Conversely, I would argue that providing an APT repository for the
unofficial packages they want available is a way for grroups to, on
their own steam, provide that stepping stone.

--
 \            “Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it |
  `\                 correct, not tried it.” —Donald Knuth, 1977-03-29 |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Idea] Debian User Repository? (Not simply mimicing AUR)

Mo Zhou
In reply to this post by Jonathan Carter (highvoltage)-2
On Sun, Apr 07, 2019 at 04:31:24PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
> +1, it's a good idea and I've thought of it before as well.

Nice!
 
> Reading some of the initial replies to your post, it seems like people
> don't entirely understand what you mean by an AUR-like service. This
> would definitely be different than PPAs (in the launchpad sense) or
> bikesheds (which is still a terrible name for all the confusion it causes).

Yes, and now real working example is available, see following.

> Have you put any thought in possible implementation yet? I don't think
> it's a good idea to devise any kind of new source packages. It's

Inventing yet-another wheel is unwise, undoubtedly. Only something
less than a tiny overhead is acceptable. Only in this way can
we use all existing mature development tools and documentations.

> probably not even necessary to use existing source packages. If you'd
> have the standard debian packaging for such an AUR^W... DUR? in a git
> repository (maybe like salsa.debian.org/dur/*) with a standardised git
> workflow for these, then it should be rather trivial to implement with a
> helper script that fetches the upstream source and just builds that
> package locally. So I think from a technical point of view, implementing
> something like AUR for Debian doesn't seem so hard. It can also act as a
> nice gateway to proper Debian development.

If we ignore the web part, a functional yet rushed demonstration is
available here:

https://github.com/dupr/duprkit

If you follow the instructions there, you will be able to pull the default
packaging collection, do searching by keyword, and build some demo
packages (they are really working).

Specifically, I drafted 2 new plain file format specifications:
f822 (means folded deb822), and durpkg (mimicing PKGBUILD).

 * f822 format allows you squash the whole debian/ directory into a single
   plain file, with a specification that cannnot be simpler[1]

 * durpkg is a concatenation of a shell script and an f822 file[2].
   the shell part[3] defines things like (1) how do prepare the source
   (2) how to apply some patch (3) how to build the .deb packages
   (4) how to clean (5) optionally user's customed hacks.

   Shell script introduces the MAXIMUM flexibility and allows the users
   to do virtually anything they want.

An user contributed collection looks like [4], see readme for directory
layout specification for a DUR? collection. The "duprkit" can be
configured to use other, or private collections as well.

Everything looks hacky since it's rushed within several hours. Many
details could be improved. However, this demonstration is enough
to illusrate what I'm thinking.

[1] https://github.com/dupr/duprkit/blob/master/bin/unfold#L25
[2] https://github.com/dupr/duprkit/blob/master/bin/unfold#L74
[3] https://github.com/dupr/DefaultCollection/blob/master/gotop/gotop.durpkg#L1-L38
[4] https://github.com/dupr/DefaultCollection

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Idea] Debian User Repository? (Not simply mimicing AUR)

Ben Finney-3
In reply to this post by Ben Finney-3
Ben Finney <[hidden email]> writes:

> Peter Silva <[hidden email]> writes:
>
> > With debian, it's kind of all or nothing. Etiher you're in Debian,
> > and it gets built on every platform using the build farm, or it's
> > not, so you get no help at all.
>
> That doesn't seem accurate. Have people tried setting up an APT
> repository and got “no help at all”? Does the maintenance of the
> packages to run an APT repository, and instructions on how to do it, not
> count as help in doing that?

As for the build farm: the parties who donate those to Debian did so on
the understanding that they took on the load of building only the
official Debian archive. Opening the gates to even unofficial Debian
packages would be a significant increase in that burden on many of those
donated machines.

I think it's good to keep the distinction between official Debian
archive (which is built on the official Debian build farm) versus
unofficial packages (which need someone else with their own reasons to
donate resources to build them).

--
 \       “The generation of random numbers is too important to be left |
  `\                                    to chance.” —Robert R. Coveyou |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Idea] Debian User Repository? (Not simply mimicing AUR)

Mo Zhou
In reply to this post by Mo Zhou
Plus, it's super important to write every packaging bit into a single
file. That would enable simple copy&pasting from github or any other
resources. If you provide a directory, things will become more
complicated. More impotantly, the proposed single file specification
virtually adds NO overhead.

If I were a rookie, I'd really like single-file specifications
which allows simple copy&pasting.

On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 04:54:51AM +0000, Mo Zhou wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 07, 2019 at 04:31:24PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
> > +1, it's a good idea and I've thought of it before as well.
>
> Nice!
>  
> > Reading some of the initial replies to your post, it seems like people
> > don't entirely understand what you mean by an AUR-like service. This
> > would definitely be different than PPAs (in the launchpad sense) or
> > bikesheds (which is still a terrible name for all the confusion it causes).
>
> Yes, and now real working example is available, see following.
>
> > Have you put any thought in possible implementation yet? I don't think
> > it's a good idea to devise any kind of new source packages. It's
>
> Inventing yet-another wheel is unwise, undoubtedly. Only something
> less than a tiny overhead is acceptable. Only in this way can
> we use all existing mature development tools and documentations.
>
> > probably not even necessary to use existing source packages. If you'd
> > have the standard debian packaging for such an AUR^W... DUR? in a git
> > repository (maybe like salsa.debian.org/dur/*) with a standardised git
> > workflow for these, then it should be rather trivial to implement with a
> > helper script that fetches the upstream source and just builds that
> > package locally. So I think from a technical point of view, implementing
> > something like AUR for Debian doesn't seem so hard. It can also act as a
> > nice gateway to proper Debian development.
>
> If we ignore the web part, a functional yet rushed demonstration is
> available here:
>
> https://github.com/dupr/duprkit
>
> If you follow the instructions there, you will be able to pull the default
> packaging collection, do searching by keyword, and build some demo
> packages (they are really working).
>
> Specifically, I drafted 2 new plain file format specifications:
> f822 (means folded deb822), and durpkg (mimicing PKGBUILD).
>
>  * f822 format allows you squash the whole debian/ directory into a single
>    plain file, with a specification that cannnot be simpler[1]
>
>  * durpkg is a concatenation of a shell script and an f822 file[2].
>    the shell part[3] defines things like (1) how do prepare the source
>    (2) how to apply some patch (3) how to build the .deb packages
>    (4) how to clean (5) optionally user's customed hacks.
>
>    Shell script introduces the MAXIMUM flexibility and allows the users
>    to do virtually anything they want.
>
> An user contributed collection looks like [4], see readme for directory
> layout specification for a DUR? collection. The "duprkit" can be
> configured to use other, or private collections as well.
>
> Everything looks hacky since it's rushed within several hours. Many
> details could be improved. However, this demonstration is enough
> to illusrate what I'm thinking.
>
> [1] https://github.com/dupr/duprkit/blob/master/bin/unfold#L25
> [2] https://github.com/dupr/duprkit/blob/master/bin/unfold#L74
> [3] https://github.com/dupr/DefaultCollection/blob/master/gotop/gotop.durpkg#L1-L38
> [4] https://github.com/dupr/DefaultCollection
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Idea] Debian User Repository? (Not simply mimicing AUR)

Scott Kitterman-5
I don't think this should have Debian in it's name at all.  Fetching random
code from Github and building it isn't what we're about.

Scott K

On Monday, April 08, 2019 05:00:21 AM Mo Zhou wrote:

> Plus, it's super important to write every packaging bit into a single
> file. That would enable simple copy&pasting from github or any other
> resources. If you provide a directory, things will become more
> complicated. More impotantly, the proposed single file specification
> virtually adds NO overhead.
>
> If I were a rookie, I'd really like single-file specifications
> which allows simple copy&pasting.
>
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 04:54:51AM +0000, Mo Zhou wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 07, 2019 at 04:31:24PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
> > > +1, it's a good idea and I've thought of it before as well.
> >
> > Nice!
> >
> > > Reading some of the initial replies to your post, it seems like people
> > > don't entirely understand what you mean by an AUR-like service. This
> > > would definitely be different than PPAs (in the launchpad sense) or
> > > bikesheds (which is still a terrible name for all the confusion it
> > > causes).
> >
> > Yes, and now real working example is available, see following.
> >
> > > Have you put any thought in possible implementation yet? I don't think
> > > it's a good idea to devise any kind of new source packages. It's
> >
> > Inventing yet-another wheel is unwise, undoubtedly. Only something
> > less than a tiny overhead is acceptable. Only in this way can
> > we use all existing mature development tools and documentations.
> >
> > > probably not even necessary to use existing source packages. If you'd
> > > have the standard debian packaging for such an AUR^W... DUR? in a git
> > > repository (maybe like salsa.debian.org/dur/*) with a standardised git
> > > workflow for these, then it should be rather trivial to implement with a
> > > helper script that fetches the upstream source and just builds that
> > > package locally. So I think from a technical point of view, implementing
> > > something like AUR for Debian doesn't seem so hard. It can also act as a
> > > nice gateway to proper Debian development.
> >
> > If we ignore the web part, a functional yet rushed demonstration is
> > available here:
> >
> > https://github.com/dupr/duprkit
> >
> > If you follow the instructions there, you will be able to pull the default
> > packaging collection, do searching by keyword, and build some demo
> > packages (they are really working).
> >
> > Specifically, I drafted 2 new plain file format specifications:
> > f822 (means folded deb822), and durpkg (mimicing PKGBUILD).
> >
> >  * f822 format allows you squash the whole debian/ directory into a single
> >  
> >    plain file, with a specification that cannnot be simpler[1]
> >  
> >  * durpkg is a concatenation of a shell script and an f822 file[2].
> >  
> >    the shell part[3] defines things like (1) how do prepare the source
> >    (2) how to apply some patch (3) how to build the .deb packages
> >    (4) how to clean (5) optionally user's customed hacks.
> >    
> >    Shell script introduces the MAXIMUM flexibility and allows the users
> >    to do virtually anything they want.
> >
> > An user contributed collection looks like [4], see readme for directory
> > layout specification for a DUR? collection. The "duprkit" can be
> > configured to use other, or private collections as well.
> >
> > Everything looks hacky since it's rushed within several hours. Many
> > details could be improved. However, this demonstration is enough
> > to illusrate what I'm thinking.
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/dupr/duprkit/blob/master/bin/unfold#L25
> > [2] https://github.com/dupr/duprkit/blob/master/bin/unfold#L74
> > [3]
> > https://github.com/dupr/DefaultCollection/blob/master/gotop/gotop.durpkg#
> > L1-L38 [4] https://github.com/dupr/DefaultCollection

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Idea] Debian User Repository? (Not simply mimicing AUR)

Vincent Bernat-3
In reply to this post by Ben Finney-3
 ❦  8 avril 2019 14:46 +10, Ben Finney <[hidden email]>:

>> yes, it can be done, but it is a lot more work for individual
>> packagers.
>
> Sure. And, on the other hand, providing an APT repository for arbitrary
> packages of unknown copyright status is also a lot of work to expect
> disinterested volunteers to do without motivation.

Disinterested volunteers are never forced to work for Debian. What is
the point of being so negative?
--
Keep it simple to make it faster.
            - The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan & Plauger)

signature.asc (847 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Idea] Debian User Repository? (Not simply mimicing AUR)

Mo Zhou
In reply to this post by Scott Kitterman-5
Hi,

As you wish, I added a disclaimer to the toolkit, and replaced every
single "Debian" keyword in the repo with "D**ian", except for those
in disclaimer.

```
Everything included in this repository is totoally unrelated to the Debian
Project, or any OFFICIAL Debian development. Debian Project is not responsible
for any consequence resulted by utilization of the D**ian User Package
Repository Toolkit or any related .durpkg collections or single .durpkg files.
Please Take your own risk utilizing the toolkit, and please review every line
of code before execution.
```

I hereby emphasize that

  * The idea of D**ian User Repository is TOTALLY UNRELATED TO OFFICIAL
    Debian Development.

  * The Debian Project is unrelated and unresponsible for anything
    included

  * The D**ian User Repository stuff STRONGLY recommend every user to review
    everything before execution.

  * My initiative is JUST getting scutwork done, instead of introducing
    any legal risk to the Debian Project.

This thread on -devel is still meaningful if any user wants to integrate
the basic and unofficial D**ian ... Toolkit into Debian.

However, to be as much cooperative as I can, if this thread is
considered to be toxic or off-topic, that means my immediate termination
of involvement in this thread.


On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 01:25:22AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I don't think this should have Debian in it's name at all.  Fetching random
> code from Github and building it isn't what we're about.
>
> Scott K

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Idea] Debian User Repository? (Not simply mimicing AUR)

Paul Wise via nm
In reply to this post by Peter Silva
On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 10:14 PM Peter Silva <[hidden email]> wrote:

> We would love to be able to upstream to debian, but haven't figured it out

The process is pretty simple, but reliant on the limited number of
Debian members who do package sponsorship. The ones we do have are
fairly active though. The process is essentially; fix any quality
issues, upload source packages to mentors.d.n, file a request for
sponsor and reply to any responses you get.

https://mentors.debian.net/intro-maintainers

--
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Idea] Debian User Repository? (Not simply mimicing AUR)

Paul Wise via nm
In reply to this post by Mo Zhou
On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 9:26 PM Mo Zhou wrote:

> Such idea about informal packaging repository has been
> demonstrated successful by the Archlinux User Repository (AUR).
> Hence, it should be valuable to think about it for Debian.

Seems like a PKGBUILD-to-deb script would be a simple way to do this
and would also allow leveraging the existing PKGBUILD archive that is
AUR and prevent splitting the community of people who make informal
packaging.

In 2007 there was something similar for Gentoo ebuilds:

http://penta.debconf.org/dc7_schedule/events/69.en.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy9ugWUuNBM

--
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Idea] Debian User Repository? (Not simply mimicing AUR)

Mo Zhou
Hi Paul,

I've ever thought about a PKGBUILD->Deb translator, and in this
way we can directly reuse all existing code in AUR without change.

However, the translator itself is not trivial, as it might need
it's own shell parser or something alike to be reliable enough.

The current (virtually) zero-overhead naive prototype, still allows the
reuse of existing debian packaging scripts and documentations.
Plus, letting users write PKGBUILD doesn't help them learn
Debian packaging at all...

On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 03:29:12PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 9:26 PM Mo Zhou wrote:
>
> > Such idea about informal packaging repository has been
> > demonstrated successful by the Archlinux User Repository (AUR).
> > Hence, it should be valuable to think about it for Debian.
>
> Seems like a PKGBUILD-to-deb script would be a simple way to do this
> and would also allow leveraging the existing PKGBUILD archive that is
> AUR and prevent splitting the community of people who make informal
> packaging.
>
> In 2007 there was something similar for Gentoo ebuilds:
>
> http://penta.debconf.org/dc7_schedule/events/69.en.html
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy9ugWUuNBM
>
> --
> bye,
> pabs
>
> https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Idea] Debian User Repository? (Not simply mimicing AUR)

Ole Streicher
In reply to this post by Paul Wise via nm
Paul Wise <[hidden email]> writes:
> On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 10:14 PM Peter Silva <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> We would love to be able to upstream to debian, but haven't figured it out
>
> The process is pretty simple, but reliant on the limited number of
> Debian members who do package sponsorship. The ones we do have are
> fairly active though. The process is essentially; fix any quality
> issues, upload source packages to mentors.d.n, file a request for
> sponsor and reply to any responses you get.

For some fields, there are also additional possibilities: If you put
your packages into a Debian Pure Blend (like Debian Science, or Debian
Astro) and follow their rules, chances are big that someone from there
does the mentorship rather quickly.

Best

Ole

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Idea] Debian User Repository? (Not simply mimicing AUR)

Paul Wise via nm
In reply to this post by Mo Zhou
On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 3:34 PM Mo Zhou wrote:

> However, the translator itself is not trivial, as it might need
> it's own shell parser or something alike to be reliable enough.

Couldn't you just run makepkg (with some hooks) and dpkg-deb to
convert the results to Debian packages?

--
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: duprkit User Repository

Phil Morrell
In reply to this post by Mo Zhou
On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 05:00:21AM +0000, Mo Zhou wrote:
> Plus, it's super important to write every packaging bit into a single
> file. That would enable simple copy&pasting from github or any other
> resources. If you provide a directory, things will become more
> complicated. More impotantly, the proposed single file specification
> virtually adds NO overhead.

Obviously working implementation > perfect theoretical, but I'm confused
by your insistence on a single file without abstraction. Even an
uncompressed tarball can be cat'ed to read the contents, without
requiring a custom format. With a custom format, why not hide
implementation details like source format in "unfold"?

For the DefaultCollection example, don't we have a standardised download
tool in debian/watch? Similarly, the build script is essentially a
debian/rules in its construction. Could you get by with a `cat
debian/{watch,control,rules}`?
--
Phil Morrell

signature.asc (235 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Idea] Debian User Repository? (Not simply mimicing AUR)

Jonathan Dowland
In reply to this post by Mo Zhou
On Sun, Apr 07, 2019 at 02:17:00PM +0000, Mo Zhou wrote:

>This single sentence is quite ambiguous to non-native english speakers.
>
>At the first glance I interpreted the sentence as
>  "This will only lead to flamewars"
>due to the meaning of bikeshed[1].
>
>However, I got a hint from a fellow developer and learned that
>"Bikeshed" has its own meaning under Debian's context, according
>to some old mailing list fragments[2][3] -- which refers to a
>dak feature (This is the first time I heard of such thing).

This supports my (thus far) private feeling that naming this initiative
"Bikeshed" is a bad idea.

--

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: duprkit User Repository

Mo Zhou
In reply to this post by Phil Morrell
Hi,

On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 08:54:27AM +0100, Phil Morrell wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 05:00:21AM +0000, Mo Zhou wrote:
>
> Obviously working implementation > perfect theoretical, but I'm confused
> by your insistence on a single file without abstraction. Even an
> uncompressed tarball can be cat'ed to read the contents, without

AUR's PKGBUILD, Fedora/CentOS/RedHat's .spec, Gentoo's .ebuild,
all of them are single-file format. The advantages of single-file
format includes easy distribution, e.g. copying & pasting from
webpages (you cannot copy a directory from a webpage).

The single-file format doesn't accept binary blobs since they
are not review-able.

> requiring a custom format. With a custom format, why not hide
> implementation details like source format in "unfold"?

Explicitness. Source code is short, and users can quickly understand
what's happending when nothing is hidden. Besides, there is nearly
no overhead in the "unfold" plain text format, right?
 
> For the DefaultCollection example, don't we have a standardised download
> tool in debian/watch?

Whether to use debian/watch and uscan depends on the .durpkg author.
The nature of AUR's PKGBUILD is that, whoever use the package
is the one who update it. Maybe this is what should be improved
in the future but it doesn't block anything.

> Similarly, the build script is essentially a debian/rules in its construction.
> Could you get by with a `cat debian/{watch,control,rules}`?

The header script is not really what debian/rules does. For example,
when you are going to build some official Debian package, you may want
to do the following:

  $ debcheckout foobar
  $ cd foobar; gbp export-orig; debuild -S -nc
  $ sbuild -j4 foobar.dsc
  $ rm -rf foobar

And the header script defines things like the above commands. I changed
the shell function name "do_build" -> "do_trigger_build", because the
header script only defines "how to trigger the build", and the
definition of "how to build" is still in debian/rules.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Idea] Debian User Repository? (Not simply mimicing AUR)

Mo Zhou
In reply to this post by Paul Wise via nm
On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 03:46:15PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 3:34 PM Mo Zhou wrote:
>
> > However, the translator itself is not trivial, as it might need
> > it's own shell parser or something alike to be reliable enough.
>
> Couldn't you just run makepkg (with some hooks) and dpkg-deb to
> convert the results to Debian packages?

Worth a try. I'll dig into this on the weekend.
The enhancement is tracked here:
https://github.com/dupr/duprkit/issues/1

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Idea] Debian User Repository? (Not simply mimicing AUR)

Mo Zhou
In reply to this post by Mo Zhou
Hi,

D**ian may be pronounced as "Dasteriskian", i.e. "D-asterisk-ian"
(Still sounds ugly). I'm really bad at naming things, neither.

AUR is not targeted on new Archlinux users. Likewise, the D**bian
term is not expected to cause confusion to people who really
need to use these scripts/tools. That said, I want a better name
too.

On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 12:05:56PM +0200, W. Martin Borgert wrote:

> Quoting Mo Zhou <[hidden email]>:
> > As you wish, I added a disclaimer to the toolkit, and replaced every
> > single "Debian" keyword in the repo with "D**ian", except for those
> > in disclaimer.
>
> Pardon, but replacing letters with '*' looks like Debian were a
> swearword ("f*ck", "sh*t", ...) one likes to avoid. Also, it is
> not a good name, because nobody knows how to pronounce it nor
> which letters exactly were replaced. I'm bad at naming, sorry,
> but please find something else before people get used to it :-)

123456