From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Michael Tremer <michael.tremer@ipfire.org>
To: location@lists.ipfire.org
Subject: Re: Upload libloc to Debian
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2022 11:13:07 +0200
Message-ID: <53A0D651-73FD-4A97-81E9-DC2D7565D7EF@ipfire.org>
In-Reply-To: <YsZzRoVJ1C7AfDI3@vis.fritz.box>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1885350056571796716=="
List-Id: <location.lists.ipfire.org>

--===============1885350056571796716==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello Jochen,

Wow. I am impressed how quick you are. That is the spirit!

Thank you so much!

> On 7 Jul 2022, at 07:46, Jochen Sprickerhof <libloc(a)jochen.sprickerhof.de=
> wrote:
>=20
> * Michael Tremer <michael.tremer(a)ipfire.org> [2022-07-06 09:29]:
>> This is what I expected. However, if =E2=80=94-verify complains, shouldn=
=E2=80=99t it complain about the symlink, too?
>=20
> No, I create the symlink in the maintainer scripts:
> https://salsa.debian.org/debian/libloc/-/blob/master/debian/location.postin=
st
> https://salsa.debian.org/debian/libloc/-/blob/master/debian/location.postrm

Ah, that is something I didn=E2=80=99t think of :)

>> Yes, I wouldn=E2=80=99t want any discrepancies here and be as consistent a=
s possible.
>>=20
>> So, would you be up for submitting a patch for this as well?
>=20
> Attached.

I merged this patch and the one from your previous email into master.

I didn=E2=80=99t rebuild the packages, yet, as there is probably no need.

>> Ultimately, I am not even sure if there is any point in keeping those buil=
d scripts around in our repository. There should only be one set of packages =
available and if that is part of the distribution already, I do not see any r=
eason why we should have our own set of packages, too.
>=20
> Agreed, though I will upload the package to Debian unstable from where it w=
ill transition to testing to be part of the next Debian version (bookworm). Y=
ou probably want to provide packages for the older Debian versions, still.

Yes, at least we need to support stable at the moment to make it easier to us=
e libloc.

But that creates a couple of problems for us:

I don=E2=80=99t really want to provide packages for unstable and bookworm the=
n, because should use the =E2=80=9Cofficial=E2=80=9D packages.

But I do want to be absolutely compatible with unstable. See below...

> 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 older=
 Debian versions. Testing and comments welcome.

And that is the problem then=E2=80=A6

Would it be a good idea to merge all your changes into our Git repository? Is=
 it long term a good idea to keep debian/ in our repository? In theory that c=
ould go as soon as bookworm becomes stable.

Any pointers what would be a good idea to do here?

-Michael

>=20
> Cheers Jochen
> <0001-Merge-location-importer-into-location-package.patch>


--===============1885350056571796716==--