From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Tremer To: location@lists.ipfire.org Subject: Re: Upload libloc to Debian Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2022 13:02:19 +0200 Message-ID: <26719411-D6EA-46E4-8259-487E39E72F7F@ipfire.org> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0022516009870336665==" List-Id: --===============0022516009870336665== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello, > On 8 Jul 2022, at 11:58, Jochen Sprickerhof wrote: >=20 > * Michael Tremer [2022-07-08 11:13]: >> I didn=E2=80=99t rebuild the packages, yet, as there is probably no need. >=20 > It would be great to provide new packages at some point to ease the transit= ion to the new package names but there is still time. > Once users of the ipfire packages upgrade to the new version (which should = work seamlessly), updates to the Debian version will be no problem as well. I have a couple of open bugs to fix and will soon release a new version. Hope= fully in the next few weeks. And then build new packages. >> I don=E2=80=99t really want to provide packages for unstable and bookworm = then, because should use the =E2=80=9Cofficial=E2=80=9D packages. >>=20 >> But I do want to be absolutely compatible with unstable. See below... >=20 > What do you mean by "absolutely compatible"? Have the same set of packages with the same dependencies. So basically provid= e what is in unstable, just compiled for buster and bullseye. > The package names and content are the same and Debian tooling will take car= e that the packages are compatible with the other packages in unstable. >=20 >>> I've uploaded first versions here: >>>=20 >>> https://salsa.debian.org/debian/libloc >>> https://salsa.debian.org/debian/libloc-database >>>=20 >>> Note that these target Debian unstable and will probably not build on old= er Debian versions. Testing and comments welcome. >>=20 >> And that is the problem then=E2=80=A6 >=20 > The comment was for the Debian source package not software using the librar= y later. I don't see a problem here. >=20 >> Would it be a good idea to merge all your changes into our Git repository? >=20 > No, as commented above that would not work when building the package for ol= der Debian versions. You could probably use debhelper from buster-backports t= o build them if you want. >=20 >> Is it long term a good idea to keep debian/ in our repository? >=20 > Debian encourage upstream not to provide a debian/ directory but our toolin= g filters them anyhow so it is not important. We just added it so that we could develop the packaging and where hoping to p= ass it off to the distribution like we did now. So it was always only suppose= d to be something temporary. >> In theory that could go as soon as bookworm becomes stable. >=20 > Currently you provide packages for buster and bullseye, I guess you want to= keep those. Yes, I was just hoping that the tooling will build on those as well and I jus= t have to run the build :) Since I don=E2=80=99t know enough - barely anything really - about the Debian= packaging system, maybe I am asking stupid questions. I will poke around a l= ittle bit more. Potentially Stefan already has a plan :) -Michael >=20 > Cheers Jochen --===============0022516009870336665==--