Re: installer for non-free packages in contrib
Hi, On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 10:13:59AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 09:35:45AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: Would it be acceptable to fill a bug against each installer that do not build a proper debian package when installing non-free software? How can they do so? Installing a package with 'dpkg -i' in the postinst of another package isn't possible, since dpkg's status area is locked. Jumping in late here, but what about installing a list of files with the package that, if existing on the system, are considered to be part of that package; and so when the package is removed, they are removed with it. It could be something like debian/track where 'track' is a list of files to be tracked by this package as if they were contained within it when it was built (even though they are actually downloaded during the package's postinst or by another script) -- Ryan Underwood, nemesis at icequake.net, icq=10317253
Re: installer for non-free packages in contrib
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] unless you think that it's better for the installer package to spit out a .deb somewhere which you then have to install separately, which seems to me like a step backwards in convenience. Depends, generating a deb has some bright sides: 'dpkg -S' and conffile managment. cu andreas
Re: installer for non-free packages in contrib
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : At this point, the question is not how to do it. I can think about 30 ways to do it, while I'm surely not the expert here. I asked you a question which could be answered quite simply by producing one of those ways. Go on. It's my honest belief that it can't be done correctly; I'm open to hearing ways in which I'm wrong. Instead of having a package the binary and install it, we can surely have the package that set up a directory in /usr/src with everything needed to be build the debian package + a script in /usr/bin that would create the package and install effectively (named after the installer package name, for instance). There's no reason when you install an installer to have a software installed, apart from the installer itself. You should have a tool that permits you to install the software and that's what I'm proposing. If you remove the installer, all these files would be removed, whatever the fact you may have build and installed the non-free software or not. I think it's a pretty easy solution to have something clean. Would it be acceptable to fill a bug against each installer that do not build a proper debian package when installing non-free software, as long as a technical solution is provided? I guess so, if the technical solution is correct. Severity something less than release-critical, though. Is this technical solution acceptable for you? -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: installer for non-free packages in contrib
Ryan Underwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : Hi, On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 10:13:59AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 09:35:45AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: Would it be acceptable to fill a bug against each installer that do not build a proper debian package when installing non-free software? How can they do so? Installing a package with 'dpkg -i' in the postinst of another package isn't possible, since dpkg's status area is locked. Jumping in late here, but what about installing a list of files with the package that, if existing on the system, are considered to be part of that package; and so when the package is removed, they are removed with it. There are plenty of reasons to avoid that: - not rewriting a poor dpkg just for these non-free software that cannot even enter non-free - removing an installer should not be removing an installed package - it would be a dirty hack to have vrms and usual debian tools to guess whether these non-free software are here or not -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: installer for non-free packages in contrib
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, Colin Watson wrote: OK. How does one create an installer package which correctly does the following: * creates a Debian package for the thing it's installing the installer contains a diff and dsc, downloads the orig source, then builds a .deb * installs that package in such a way that it's registered in dpkg's database do the install in the background when the dpkg DB area is unlocked * doesn't rely on internal implementation details of dpkg such as /var/lib/dpkg/status and /var/lib/dpkg/info/*.list files should not be an issue given the above * when the installer package is considered by dpkg as fully configured, the package it's installing is also fully configured * if some error happens when installing the created package, the installer package will throw an error during configuration I don't think these last two are possible without a dpkg daemon (install from a queue instead of a list on the commandline), and even then it would be necessary to be able to flag a package as using a multi-stage install. For the sake of argument lets assume the installer is configured and didn't generate an error as long as it can get as far as downloading the original source: you would not be able to configure anything (during the same dpkg run) which depends on the package created by the installer, and it would not be proper to flag the installer as providing the package it creates (because the last two points can not be met)... ? I think that's a minimal specification for a correct installer package which does its work by creating Debian packages; unless you think that it's better for the installer package to spit out a .deb somewhere which you then have to install separately, which seems to me like a step backwards in convenience. ...I guess I'd end up with a fetch-build-install instead of a proper installer package --- a (half?) step backwards with respect to Debian's dependency handling, but a step forward if the main objective is to have installer installed stuff managed by the package handling system. It would be clear that stuff installed by such a system is not a part of Debian (because of the lack of dependency handling), and migration into Debian would be easy when the license (or whatever is keeping the software out of Debian) changes. - Bruce
Re: installer for non-free packages in contrib
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 09:17:13AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapot? : I asked you a question which could be answered quite simply by producing one of those ways. Go on. It's my honest belief that it can't be done correctly; I'm open to hearing ways in which I'm wrong. Instead of having a package the binary and install it, we can surely have the package that set up a directory in /usr/src with everything needed to be build the debian package + a script in /usr/bin that would create the package and install effectively (named after the installer package name, for instance). There's no reason when you install an installer to have a software installed, apart from the installer itself. You should have a tool that permits you to install the software and that's what I'm proposing. If you remove the installer, all these files would be removed, whatever the fact you may have build and installed the non-free software or not. I think it's a pretty easy solution to have something clean. I think that's a step backwards. In particular, it's now impossible to have an installer package which Provides: a virtual package in a sensible way; it introduces an extra manual step into the sequence, and to be honest I don't see many advantages over just installing the software in /usr/local and managing it with stow. But I guess some people might like it. Would it be acceptable to fill a bug against each installer that do not build a proper debian package when installing non-free software, as long as a technical solution is provided? I guess so, if the technical solution is correct. Severity something less than release-critical, though. Is this technical solution acceptable for you? I think if you want to do your installer packages this way then that's fine, but I would disagree with making everybody do it. *shrug* Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: installer for non-free packages in contrib
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 01:24:07AM -0600, Bruce Sass wrote: On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, Colin Watson wrote: * installs that package in such a way that it's registered in dpkg's database do the install in the background when the dpkg DB area is unlocked Yuck! Please, no! Error handling? Error reporting? Reproducibility? -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: installer for non-free packages in contrib
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 12:37:04AM -0500, Ryan Underwood wrote: On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 10:13:59AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 09:35:45AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: Would it be acceptable to fill a bug against each installer that do not build a proper debian package when installing non-free software? How can they do so? Installing a package with 'dpkg -i' in the postinst of another package isn't possible, since dpkg's status area is locked. Jumping in late here, but what about installing a list of files with the package that, if existing on the system, are considered to be part of that package; and so when the package is removed, they are removed with it. It could be something like debian/track where 'track' is a list of files to be tracked by this package as if they were contained within it when it was built (even though they are actually downloaded during the package's postinst or by another script) Sounds like the old dpkg-registerfile idea (or whatever it was called), and it would be useful for other purposes as well. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: installer for non-free packages in contrib
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 09:17:13AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapot? :
I asked you a question which could be answered quite simply by producing
one of those ways. Go on. It's my honest belief that it can't be done
correctly; I'm open to hearing ways in which I'm wrong.
Instead of having a package the binary and install it, we can surely
have the package that set up a directory in /usr/src with everything
needed to be build the debian package + a script in /usr/bin that
would create the package and install effectively (named after the
installer package name, for instance).
There's no reason when you install an installer to have a software
installed, apart from the installer itself. You should have a tool
that permits you to install the software and that's what I'm proposing.
If you remove the installer, all these files would be removed, whatever
the fact you may have build and installed the non-free software or
not.
I think it's a pretty easy solution to have something clean.
I think that's a step backwards. In particular, it's now impossible to
have an installer package which Provides: a virtual package in a
sensible way;
Which virtual package? The package that will be built will be a
completely normal package.
it introduces an extra manual step into the sequence, and to be
honest I don't see many advantages over just installing the software
in /usr/local and managing it with stow.
I already listed theses advantages previously. That the origin of the
thread.
Would it be acceptable to fill a bug against each installer that do
not build a proper debian package when installing non-free software,
as long as a technical solution is provided?
I guess so, if the technical solution is correct. Severity something
less than release-critical, though.
Is this technical solution acceptable for you?
I think if you want to do your installer packages this way then that's
fine, but I would disagree with making everybody do it. *shrug*
You're funny.
1. Theorical proposal: you replied that you need a technical proposal
2. Technical proposal: you reply that you do not agree with the
theorical proposal.
In my previous mail, I suspected you to be strangely
obstructive. It's no longer a suspicion to my eyes and I strangely do
not see any argument ('go make your own GNU/Linux distro', what an
interesting proposal when discussing about how Debian works!).
Beside from that, I have a strange sensation when I see you telling
that it's fine that a package in contrib basically contains a non-free
software* and in the same time claiming that GFDLed software are very
evil in regards of freedom.
* No, it's not a dependancy, it does not need any other debian package
to install the software, it does install the software during the
installer package installation.
A pity.
--
Mathieu Roy
Homepage:
http://yeupou.coleumes.org
Not a native english speaker:
http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: installer for non-free packages in contrib
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 09:17:13AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapot? : I asked you a question which could be answered quite simply by producing one of those ways. Go on. It's my honest belief that it can't be done correctly; I'm open to hearing ways in which I'm wrong. Instead of having a package the binary and install it, we can surely have the package that set up a directory in /usr/src with everything needed to be build the debian package + a script in /usr/bin that would create the package and install effectively (named after the installer package name, for instance). There's no reason when you install an installer to have a software installed, apart from the installer itself. You should have a tool that permits you to install the software and that's what I'm proposing. If you remove the installer, all these files would be removed, whatever the fact you may have build and installed the non-free software or not. I think it's a pretty easy solution to have something clean. I think that's a step backwards. In particular, it's now impossible to have an installer package which Provides: a virtual package in a sensible way; Which virtual package? The package that will be built will be a completely normal package. [...] Let us say we are talking about foo-runtime, a interpreter/virtual machine that many packages in contrib depend on. If the installer package worked as you proposed it wouldn't fulfil its puprose, the foo-runtime-installer does _not_ provide foo-runtime, so apt-get install foo-blahfasel will simply fail, because there is no package providing foo-runtime available. This doesn't just happen on initial installs but also on upgrades (WTF is foo-runtime = 1.4?) cu andreas -- Hey, da ist ein Ballonautomat auf der Toilette! Unofficial _Debian-packages_ of latest unstable _tin_ http://www.logic.univie.ac.at/~ametzler/debian/tin-snapshot/
Re: installer for non-free packages in contrib
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003, Colin Watson wrote: It could be something like debian/track where 'track' is a list of files to be tracked by this package as if they were contained within it when it was built (even though they are actually downloaded during the package's postinst or by another script) Sounds like the old dpkg-registerfile idea (or whatever it was called), and it would be useful for other purposes as well. I concur. I am fed up with all those .pyc files that dpkg -S does not know about. -- Sam.
installer for non-free packages in contrib
Hi, I did not noticed clear answer about my proposal about the non-free software installer in contrib. Would it be acceptable to fill a bug against each installer that do not build a proper debian package when installing non-free software? If so, which severity is appropriate? I do not think that the issue is so trivial, so I do not think it can be considered as only a wish. Regards, -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: installer for non-free packages in contrib
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 09:35:45AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: I did not noticed clear answer about my proposal about the non-free software installer in contrib. It might help if you posted a summary of the thread. Would it be acceptable to fill a bug against each installer that do not build a proper debian package when installing non-free software? Not until after the summary has been evaluated. If so, which severity is appropriate? I do not think that the issue is so trivial, so I do not think it can be considered as only a wish. When in doubt, use severity normal, and let the package maintainer decide which severity might be more appropriate. But do no filing at all on this issue until after a consensus has been reached on this mailing list. -- G. Branden Robinson| Yesterday upon the stair, Debian GNU/Linux | I met a man who wasn't there. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | He wasn't there again today, http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | I think he's from the CIA. pgpIBvTotBxHG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: installer for non-free packages in contrib
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 09:35:45AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: Would it be acceptable to fill a bug against each installer that do not build a proper debian package when installing non-free software? How can they do so? Installing a package with 'dpkg -i' in the postinst of another package isn't possible, since dpkg's status area is locked. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: installer for non-free packages in contrib
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 09:35:45AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: Would it be acceptable to fill a bug against each installer that do not build a proper debian package when installing non-free software? How can they do so? Installing a package with 'dpkg -i' in the postinst of another package isn't possible, since dpkg's status area is locked. At this point, the question is not how to do it (anyway, I think there are several way to do it, it's not a big deal). -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: installer for non-free packages in contrib
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 01:08:34PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapot? : On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 09:35:45AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: Would it be acceptable to fill a bug against each installer that do not build a proper debian package when installing non-free software? How can they do so? Installing a package with 'dpkg -i' in the postinst of another package isn't possible, since dpkg's status area is locked. At this point, the question is not how to do it I think it absolutely is. If something is impossible to do correctly then filing [1] bugs against packages claiming that they don't do it is rather unfair. [1] P.S. When talking about bugs the verb is file, not fill, and filing, not filling. This seems to be a common mistake. (anyway, I think there are several way to do it, it's not a big deal). OK. How does one create an installer package which correctly does the following: * creates a Debian package for the thing it's installing * installs that package in such a way that it's registered in dpkg's database * doesn't rely on internal implementation details of dpkg such as /var/lib/dpkg/status and /var/lib/dpkg/info/*.list files * when the installer package is considered by dpkg as fully configured, the package it's installing is also fully configured * if some error happens when installing the created package, the installer package will throw an error during configuration ? I think that's a minimal specification for a correct installer package which does its work by creating Debian packages; unless you think that it's better for the installer package to spit out a .deb somewhere which you then have to install separately, which seems to me like a step backwards in convenience. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: installer for non-free packages in contrib
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 01:08:34PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapot? : On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 09:35:45AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: Would it be acceptable to fill a bug against each installer that do not build a proper debian package when installing non-free software? How can they do so? Installing a package with 'dpkg -i' in the postinst of another package isn't possible, since dpkg's status area is locked. At this point, the question is not how to do it I think it absolutely is. If something is impossible to do correctly then filing [1] bugs against packages claiming that they don't do it is rather unfair. At this point, the question is not how to do it. I can think about 30 ways to do it, while I'm surely not the expert here. So I'll rephrase my question to avoid having you being obstructive. Would it be acceptable to fill a bug against each installer that do not build a proper debian package when installing non-free software, as long as a technical solution is provided? -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: installer for non-free packages in contrib
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 06:42:46PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: [Please stop sending me private copies of list mail.] Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapot? : On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 01:08:34PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapot? : On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 09:35:45AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: Would it be acceptable to fill a bug against each installer that do not build a proper debian package when installing non-free software? How can they do so? Installing a package with 'dpkg -i' in the postinst of another package isn't possible, since dpkg's status area is locked. At this point, the question is not how to do it I think it absolutely is. If something is impossible to do correctly then filing [1] bugs against packages claiming that they don't do it is rather unfair. At this point, the question is not how to do it. I can think about 30 ways to do it, while I'm surely not the expert here. I asked you a question which could be answered quite simply by producing one of those ways. Go on. It's my honest belief that it can't be done correctly; I'm open to hearing ways in which I'm wrong. So I'll rephrase my question to avoid having you being obstructive. Er, I'm not being obstructive! I'm trying to figure out if there's any point to your proposed mass-bug-filing. Would it be acceptable to fill a bug against each installer that do not build a proper debian package when installing non-free software, as long as a technical solution is provided? I guess so, if the technical solution is correct. Severity something less than release-critical, though. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: installer for non-free packages in contrib
Colin Watson wrote: ? I think that's a minimal specification for a correct installer package which does its work by creating Debian packages; unless you think that it's better for the installer package to spit out a .deb somewhere which you then have to install separately, which seems to me like a step backwards in convenience. Cheers, As a user, it always is my expectation that an installer package won't actually install the package in its postinst, but rather just install a script that needs to be run separately in order to fetch the binary, build a deb, and install the deb(perhaps just put a 'su -c dpkg -i created.deb' at the end of the script) or make you then install the deb[like the nvidia drivers used to work]. Fetching the binary takes a significant amount of bandwidth and would be annoying during the install of the installer when you may be installing other packages as well and are not necessarily connected to the internet. pgp18TYXBVMLq.pgp Description: PGP signature
