:: Re: [devuan-dev] On joining Devuan …
Top Page
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Author: Evilham
Date:  
To: devuan developers internal list
CC: Dmitry Bogatov
Subject: Re: [devuan-dev] On joining Devuan development team
On dt., ag. 20 2019, Evilham wrote:

> On dt., ag. 20 2019, Dmitry Bogatov wrote:
>
>> [ Please keep me in CC on replies ]
>>
>> I am calling for review of package 'apt-cacher-ng', located at:
>>
>>     https://git.devuan.org/kaction/apt-cacher-ng

>>
>> at branch 'from/3.2-2', signed tag devuan/3.2-2+devuan1, hash
>> [04aa883].
>> To build package:
>>
>>     $ git checkout from/3.2-2
>>     $ gbp buildpackage --ignore-branch -us -uc

>>
>> NB: Upstream build system always links with libsystemd if it
>> can
>> find
>> it; I did not change it. So, build on system with
>> libsystemd-dev
>> installed /will/ link to libsystemd. Build in
>> sbuild/pbuilder/etc
>> instead.
>>
>
> I'll see if I can help you out with apt-cacher-ng, I should
> probably set that up to save time and bandwidth anyway :-).
> Though maybe someone else has more experience with it and or is
> otherwise more qualified or willing to do that.



A few things:

1. As jaromil mentioned, we try to keep the git history, it's
normal to get it "wrong" the first time since it's not entirely
obvious. I basically got salsa's debian/3.2-2 tag and
cherry-picked your 2 commits in there.
A repo with these changes and git history:
https://git.devuan.org/evilham/apt-cacher-ng/commits/suites/unstable
2. These changes appear to only remove libsystemd0 and service
files.
- libsystemd0: I thought removing the libsystemd0 dependency
everywhere was not even a long-term goal in Devuan, since we
now have libelogind0 and it effectively removes systemd's code
while being compatible with Debian's packages.
- service files: we are not removing these as they are harmless
and not worth the overhead to remove them. There was a setting
to keep those from being installed by apt, I can look for it
and we probably should add that to documentation since people
ask this all the time, but it shouldn't be a reason to fork
packages and not worth the added effort over many packages.
If I am right here, it means we don't need to fork
apt-cacher-ng for these reasons (but maybe we do anyway, see
4), and maybe someone will want to elaborate on this. If I am
wrong, I'd appreciate some clarification.
3. with the package as it was, I got this message on installing
the .deb:

    Setting up apt-cacher-ng (3.2-2+devuan1) ...
    /var/lib/dpkg/info/apt-cacher-ng.postinst: 67: 
    /var/lib/dpkg/info/apt-cacher-ng.postinst: cannot create 
    /var/lib/apt-cacher-ng/backends_debian.default: Directory 
    nonexistent


So I removed the find/delete line in overrides/nosystemd.mk,
which meant the package installs properly.
Maybe. It gets stuck at "Setting up apt-cacher-ng
(3.2-2+devuan1) ...", but I think this is because this is a
heavily firewalled VM and it may be trying to do something
networky, sadly I dont' have the time to debug it now.
4. From the looks of it, postinst tries to figure out mirror urls
from sources and if it fails (which it does in Devuan), it
defaults to http://ftp.debian.org/debian/, which is not really all
that useful. This would be a better reason to fork the package,
but is not being addressed in these patches.

Personally: I'd even prefer the package not to be forked, as I'd
expect people to want to make sure apt-cacher-ng uses a mirror
that is network-topologically near the machine anyway.
OTOH http://deb.devuan.org/merged/ could be a good fit as well and
this would be a patch we'd like to try to land in Debian for
bullseye.

I hope that's useful.
--
Evilham