Bug#849308: wireguard: Wireguard should not transition to stable yet
Hi DKG, > Please make sure you can build the package from the debian/master branch > at https://salsa.debian.org/debian/wireguard> . > > If you can do that successfully (it shouldn't be too hard), feel free to > take a look at the debian/TODO file, which contains a handful of > suggestions, mostly about setting up more detailed autopkgtest testing. Building is no problem. I will dig into the autopkgtest testing. It is rather new to me. > > Another thing that might be handy is to read through the discussion > starting here: > > > https://lists.debian.org/deity/2019/09/msg00017.html > > > The idea is to propose a debian package for binary wireguard kernel > modules that matches the current kernel package, so that users > wouldn't > need to use dkms. getting the dependency details right there is > tricky, > as is keeping it up to date, but it might be worth trying. Interesting, needs more digging from my side. > > I've pushed a very ungainly initial attempt at this binary module > packaging to > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/wireguard-modules > -- you > might want to take a look at that and consider fixing one of the > things > in debian/TODO there, and proposing a fix. > Alternately, testing its > build and seeing whether the resultant binary works or not on systems > without dkms would also be interesting. That shouldn't be a problem. First I will take the autopkgtest. Greetings, Willem
Bug#849308: wireguard: Wireguard should not transition to stable yet
Hi Willem-- On Tue 2019-10-01 06:50:29 +0200, Willem van den Akker wrote: > I offer by help for maintaining packaging WG. Thank you, happy to have help! > Please let me know how I can help. Please make sure you can build the package from the debian/master branch at https://salsa.debian.org/debian/wireguard. If you can do that successfully (it shouldn't be too hard), feel free to take a look at the debian/TODO file, which contains a handful of suggestions, mostly about setting up more detailed autopkgtest testing. Another thing that might be handy is to read through the discussion starting here: https://lists.debian.org/deity/2019/09/msg00017.html The idea is to propose a debian package for binary wireguard kernel modules that matches the current kernel package, so that users wouldn't need to use dkms. getting the dependency details right there is tricky, as is keeping it up to date, but it might be worth trying. I've pushed a very ungainly initial attempt at this binary module packaging to https://salsa.debian.org/debian/wireguard-modules -- you might want to take a look at that and consider fixing one of the things in debian/TODO there, and proposing a fix. Alternately, testing its build and seeing whether the resultant binary works or not on systems without dkms would also be interesting. Thanks for offering to help! --dkg signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#849308: wireguard: Wireguard should not transition to stable yet
Hi Daniel, I offer by help for maintaining packaging WG. Please let me know how I can help. /Willem
Bug#849308: wireguard: Wireguard should not transition to stable yet
Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > Now, of course we could let it drop into testing for the moment by > reducing the severity of this bug, and then cranking the severity back > up before the release, but that feels a little bit like cheating, no? > > All that said, i do see the appeal of having wider distribution, i'm > just not sure how to do that within the structure of the debian APT > archive. > > Any suggestions? Debian users have a powerful package manager at their disposal that lets them run testing but cherry-pick packages from unstable, e.g. see "Tracking Testing or Unstable" in the apt_preferences(5) manpage. That seems like the appropriate solution if wireguard doesn't have a stable wire protocol yet. So far I've even had success using the wireguard packages from unstable on stretch, just by pinning unstable. -- Robert Edmonds edmo...@debian.org
Bug#849308: wireguard: Wireguard should not transition to stable yet
Hi Georg-- On Wed 2017-07-12 02:56:45 +0200, Georg Faerber wrote: > I would like to see wireguard right now in buster. Even if the on-wire > format should change in the future, it would be still worth it, IMHO. > Buster is the 'testing' suite - so let's just do that: let's test and > get this into testing. Sometimes testing breaks, which is expected, but > most of the time it works. I doubt that there would be a major > difference in this case. I understand the appeal here, but the semantics of entry into debian "testing" is that a package should be in preparation for the next stable release. I don't believe that wireguard upstream (Jason Donenfeld) wants wireguard to be shipped in any long-term operating systems (like debian stable), because he wants to be able to recommend an upgrade to all deployed instances easily (that won't happen once buster is stable). This makes me reluctant to put it into debian testing. If upstream explicitly states a commitment to maintaining the wire format, then that version can definitely propagate into testing. but that hasn't happened yet. Now, of course we could let it drop into testing for the moment by reducing the severity of this bug, and then cranking the severity back up before the release, but that feels a little bit like cheating, no? All that said, i do see the appeal of having wider distribution, i'm just not sure how to do that within the structure of the debian APT archive. Any suggestions? --dkg signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#849308: wireguard: Wireguard should not transition to stable yet
Hi, I would like to see wireguard right now in buster. Even if the on-wire format should change in the future, it would be still worth it, IMHO. Buster is the 'testing' suite - so let's just do that: let's test and get this into testing. Sometimes testing breaks, which is expected, but most of the time it works. I doubt that there would be a major difference in this case. Thanks for consideration and your work, cheers, Georg signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#849308: wireguard: Wireguard should not transition to stable yet
Source: wireguard Version: 0.0.20161223-1 Severity: grave Tags: upstream Justification: renders package unusable Wireguard appears to be stable and reliable enough to distribute in debian unstable, to get more widespread testing than would arise from distribution in experimental alone. However, the on-wire format might still change, leading to potential interop issues, and upstream isn't yet willing to maintain a stable branch in the face of security issues (which is understandable given the age of the project. So this bug report is a placeholder to keep it from migration. Feel free to comment here! --dkg -- System Information: Debian Release: stretch/sid APT prefers testing-debug APT policy: (500, 'testing-debug'), (500, 'testing'), (200, 'unstable-debug'), (200, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental-debug'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: i386 Kernel: Linux 4.8.0-2-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
