Bug#1061111: RFS: dpkg-buildenv/1.0.0 [ITP] -- Builds debian packages in a docker container.
Hi! On Fri, 2024-01-19 at 14:13:07 +, Aidan wrote: > On Fri, 19 Jan 2024, 00:08 Guillem Jover, wrote: > > …regardless of whether this is or not the last blocking issue, I'd > > still very much appreciate if you could rename the project and tool > > upstream. :) > I shall rename the tool to remove "dpkg". Unless there are any objections > I'm going to rename it to: > "debpic: DEbian Build Package In Container" That looks better, yes, and thank you for considering doing that! (Also the pic part also evokes into my mind "image" which seems apt in this context. :) Thanks, Guillem
Bug#1061111: RFS: dpkg-buildenv/1.0.0 [ITP] -- Builds debian packages in a docker container.
Thanks for taking the time to comment Guillem. On Fri, 19 Jan 2024, 00:08 Guillem Jover, wrote: > Hi! > > On Thu, 2024-01-18 at 23:14:49 +, Aidan wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 6:30 PM David Kalnischkies wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 02:35:40PM +, Aidan wrote: > > > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "dpkg-buildenv": > > > > > > Similar to my recent "veto" of apt-verify in #1059267, which was > > > subsequently ignored and pushed into the archive anyhow, I would > > > like to call into question the naming of the package/application… > > > > > > There are various "dpkg-build*" tools already that grabbing 'env' feels > > > wrong (I would confuse it probably with 'flag' on a bad day), > especially > > > if that isn't at least discussed with dpkg maintainers (I at least see > > > no mention of it on the list) and given that this is something that > > > "just" works with Docker. > > Just by chance I had seen the mail on the mentors list, but thanks for > the heads-up, because I tend to look there very sporadically! > > My reaction was pretty similar TBH. There's enough confusion with > things like dpkg-reconfigure and dpkg-preconfigure and other packages > that have also grabbed from the dpkg-* namespace, which I'd like to > reduce. In this case, it would remove the possibility to use such name > in the future, creates confusion, and it looks like a layer violation, > because it's setting up apt, containers and stuff which should be > sitting on top and not below dpkg. > That's a good point about it looking like a layer violation. > > > > As explained in the other bug, there is no veto and as you can see its > > > easy to completely ignore me (and anyone else) but I wanted to say it > > > anyhow, so that nobody is surprised later on. > > > Thanks for taking a look David. > > For the name I choose "dpkg'' because it stands for "debian package" and > > dpkg-buildenv is intrinsically related to debian packaging. > > However I understand the usage of dpkg may imply the package has been > > officially created and maintained by the dpkg developers. > > Yes, see above. I also appreciate naming is hard, :) but all other > similar implementations could have claimed the same about using dpkg-*, > and I think josch questions are also relevant, even though I also > understand that even among all other options, none might seem > completely suitable to you. But… > > > If the package's name was the last blocking issue preventing adoption in > > Debian then I would spend the time to rename it. > > …regardless of whether this is or not the last blocking issue, I'd > still very much appreciate if you could rename the project and tool > upstream. :) I shall rename the tool to remove "dpkg". Unless there are any objections I'm going to rename it to: "debpic: DEbian Build Package In Container" > > Thanks, > Guillem >
Bug#1061111: RFS: dpkg-buildenv/1.0.0 [ITP] -- Builds debian packages in a docker container.
Hi! On Thu, 2024-01-18 at 23:14:49 +, Aidan wrote: > On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 6:30 PM David Kalnischkies wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 02:35:40PM +, Aidan wrote: > > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "dpkg-buildenv": > > > > Similar to my recent "veto" of apt-verify in #1059267, which was > > subsequently ignored and pushed into the archive anyhow, I would > > like to call into question the naming of the package/application… > > > > There are various "dpkg-build*" tools already that grabbing 'env' feels > > wrong (I would confuse it probably with 'flag' on a bad day), especially > > if that isn't at least discussed with dpkg maintainers (I at least see > > no mention of it on the list) and given that this is something that > > "just" works with Docker. Just by chance I had seen the mail on the mentors list, but thanks for the heads-up, because I tend to look there very sporadically! My reaction was pretty similar TBH. There's enough confusion with things like dpkg-reconfigure and dpkg-preconfigure and other packages that have also grabbed from the dpkg-* namespace, which I'd like to reduce. In this case, it would remove the possibility to use such name in the future, creates confusion, and it looks like a layer violation, because it's setting up apt, containers and stuff which should be sitting on top and not below dpkg. > > As explained in the other bug, there is no veto and as you can see its > > easy to completely ignore me (and anyone else) but I wanted to say it > > anyhow, so that nobody is surprised later on. > Thanks for taking a look David. > For the name I choose "dpkg'' because it stands for "debian package" and > dpkg-buildenv is intrinsically related to debian packaging. > However I understand the usage of dpkg may imply the package has been > officially created and maintained by the dpkg developers. Yes, see above. I also appreciate naming is hard, :) but all other similar implementations could have claimed the same about using dpkg-*, and I think josch questions are also relevant, even though I also understand that even among all other options, none might seem completely suitable to you. But… > If the package's name was the last blocking issue preventing adoption in > Debian then I would spend the time to rename it. …regardless of whether this is or not the last blocking issue, I'd still very much appreciate if you could rename the project and tool upstream. :) Thanks, Guillem
Bug#1061111: RFS: dpkg-buildenv/1.0.0 [ITP] -- Builds debian packages in a docker container.
On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 6:30 PM David Kalnischkies wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 02:35:40PM +, Aidan wrote: > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "dpkg-buildenv": > > Similar to my recent "veto" of apt-verify in #1059267, which was > subsequently ignored and pushed into the archive anyhow, I would > like to call into question the naming of the package/application… > > There are various "dpkg-build*" tools already that grabbing 'env' feels > wrong (I would confuse it probably with 'flag' on a bad day), especially > if that isn't at least discussed with dpkg maintainers (I at least see > no mention of it on the list) and given that this is something that > "just" works with Docker. > > > As explained in the other bug, there is no veto and as you can see its > easy to completely ignore me (and anyone else) but I wanted to say it > anyhow, so that nobody is surprised later on. > > > Best regards > > David Kalnischkies > Thanks for taking a look David. For the name I choose "dpkg'' because it stands for "debian package" and dpkg-buildenv is intrinsically related to debian packaging. However I understand the usage of dpkg may imply the package has been officially created and maintained by the dpkg developers. If the package's name was the last blocking issue preventing adoption in Debian then I would spend the time to rename it.
Bug#1061111: RFS: dpkg-buildenv/1.0.0 [ITP] -- Builds debian packages in a docker container.
On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 9:04 PM Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues < jo...@debian.org> wrote: > Hi Aidan, > > On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 16:52:26 +0100 Andrey Rakhmatullin > wrote: > > I see you added this tool to the list of similar tools on the wiki so you > > at least know about that list. So how is your tool better than other > tools > > on that list, or at least than the ones packaged in Debian? > > Please also note that if you followed the procedure outlined at > > https://mentors.debian.net/intro-maintainers/ and filed an ITP bug > before > > doing the packaging this discussion would happen there, not on the RFS > bug. > > Unlike other tools, dpkg-buildenv provides a complete dockerfile ( https://github.com/aidan-gallagher/dpkg-buildenv/blob/main/dpkg-buildenv/Dockerfile) which describes the environment setup. This makes it easy to integrate with other tools such as Jenkins ( https://github.com/aidan-gallagher/dpkg-buildenv/blob/main/dpkg-buildenv/Documentation/using-with-jenkins.md) and VSCode ( https://github.com/aidan-gallagher/dpkg-buildenv/blob/main/dpkg-buildenv/Documentation/using-with-vscode.md ). By integrating the Dockerfile with your Continuous Integration System (Jenkins), it means the Jenkin's & developer's environment is guaranteed to be the exact same. I've written about the benefits of that here: https://aidangallagher.co.uk/articles/continuous-integration-pipeline/. The ability to run the Jenkins workload within a container is the reason I started the work. > I'm the current maintainer of sbuild. You found the wiki page and you saw > that > there already exist 10 different implementations of utilities that build > Debian > packages inside a docker container. You still decided to add an eleventh > implementation so I guess my plea here will not amount to much but anyways > here > goes my sales pitch: > > If you want your code to be in Debian, please consider reviewing the patch > attached to this bug report: > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=867176 > > I'm not a docker user, so I cannot verify whether this is indeed doing the > right thing but you are, so it should be easy for you to take it, test it > and > finalize it. > > I'm afraid contributing to an existing tool is not as sexy as supplying one > that is 100% written by you but I can guarantee you that if you can clean > up > that patch, I will apply it to sbuild and your code will be in Debian > proper. > > Maybe, hopefully we can make sbuilder and/or pbuilder work with docker > instead > of having eleven competing implementations doing the same thing? > > Thanks! > > cheers, josch Thank you for taking the time to reply. I shall have a look at sbuild and that patch however I am not familiar with Perl and I imagine the sbuild implementation will be relatively more complicated than dpkg-buildenv.
Bug#1061111: RFS: dpkg-buildenv/1.0.0 [ITP] -- Builds debian packages in a docker container.
Hi Aidan, On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 16:52:26 +0100 Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote: > I see you added this tool to the list of similar tools on the wiki so you > at least know about that list. So how is your tool better than other tools > on that list, or at least than the ones packaged in Debian? > Please also note that if you followed the procedure outlined at > https://mentors.debian.net/intro-maintainers/ and filed an ITP bug before > doing the packaging this discussion would happen there, not on the RFS bug. I'm the current maintainer of sbuild. You found the wiki page and you saw that there already exist 10 different implementations of utilities that build Debian packages inside a docker container. You still decided to add an eleventh implementation so I guess my plea here will not amount to much but anyways here goes my sales pitch: If you want your code to be in Debian, please consider reviewing the patch attached to this bug report: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=867176 I'm not a docker user, so I cannot verify whether this is indeed doing the right thing but you are, so it should be easy for you to take it, test it and finalize it. I'm afraid contributing to an existing tool is not as sexy as supplying one that is 100% written by you but I can guarantee you that if you can clean up that patch, I will apply it to sbuild and your code will be in Debian proper. Maybe, hopefully we can make sbuilder and/or pbuilder work with docker instead of having eleven competing implementations doing the same thing? Thanks! cheers, josch signature.asc Description: signature
Bug#1061111: RFS: dpkg-buildenv/1.0.0 [ITP] -- Builds debian packages in a docker container.
Hi, On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 02:35:40PM +, Aidan wrote: > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "dpkg-buildenv": Similar to my recent "veto" of apt-verify in #1059267, which was subsequently ignored and pushed into the archive anyhow, I would like to call into question the naming of the package/application… There are various "dpkg-build*" tools already that grabbing 'env' feels wrong (I would confuse it probably with 'flag' on a bad day), especially if that isn't at least discussed with dpkg maintainers (I at least see no mention of it on the list) and given that this is something that "just" works with Docker. As explained in the other bug, there is no veto and as you can see its easy to completely ignore me (and anyone else) but I wanted to say it anyhow, so that nobody is surprised later on. Best regards David Kalnischkies signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1061111: RFS: dpkg-buildenv/1.0.0 [ITP] -- Builds debian packages in a docker container.
I see you added this tool to the list of similar tools on the wiki so you at least know about that list. So how is your tool better than other tools on that list, or at least than the ones packaged in Debian? Please also note that if you followed the procedure outlined at https://mentors.debian.net/intro-maintainers/ and filed an ITP bug before doing the packaging this discussion would happen there, not on the RFS bug.
Bug#1061111: RFS: dpkg-buildenv/1.0.0 [ITP] -- Builds debian packages in a docker container.
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "dpkg-buildenv": * Package name : dpkg-buildenv Version : 1.0.0 Upstream contact : Aidan Gallagher (aidg...@gmail.com) * URL : https://github.com/aidan-gallagher/dpkg-buildenv * License : LGPL-2.0+ * Vcs : https://github.com/aidan-gallagher/dpkg-buildenv.git Section : misc The source builds the following binary packages: dpkg-buildenv - Builds debian packages in a docker container. To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/dpkg-buildenv/ Alternatively, you can download the package with 'dget' using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/dpkg-buildenv/dpkg-buildenv_1.0.0.dsc Changes for the initial release: dpkg-buildenv (1.0.0) unstable; urgency=low . * Initial Release. Kind Regards, Aidan
