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.
--
真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!