Re: Proposal: Repository for fast-paced package backports
- Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2018 00:47:04 +0100
- From: Wouter Verhelst <wouter@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Proposal: Repository for fast-paced package backports
On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 07:19:02PM +0100, Dominik George wrote:
> > If you don't see obstacles, why not start today?
> I think I already made those obstacles clear: Starting outside means
(or getting donated)
> installing and operating at least a server vor volatile.debian.net (or
> whatever you call it), setting up and maintaining an upload queue, the
> queued, and everything around it, building from source for at least the most
> important architectures on hardware that needs to be there and maintained for
> that, etc. There are several issues with that:
> - It costs a lot time that could better be used elsewhere.
> - It costs extra money, which I for one do not have to spare.
So ask someone who does and who would care about this proposed new
suite? Alternatively, ask for a VM on debian.org infrastructure?
Personally I don't know whether you'll get that, but IMHO this seems
like something that could use debian.org infrastructure, even if it
should use a debian.net domain for the time being.
> - I do not sure I can do it right, because I do not know all the
> technical details.
I'm sure that if you ask nicely, ftpmaster people would be happy to help
you out in setting up things, if you get stuck. After all, they did that
for backports initially, too, if I'm not mistaken...
> Don't get me wrong - I would not hesitate to go through it if it were
> for anything that could break things, or make life harder for others, or
> something like that. I am just putting the impact of the change and the
> resources needed for seperate infrastructure in relation. Everything
> about this proposal ahs already been tested when -backports was young
> (thanks for doing the work!). This proposal contains nothing new to
> learn, neither technically nor policy-wise.
Nothing you can see right now, perhaps. However, since your proposed
ruleset is different from that of -backports as well as that of the
official debian.org infrastructure, I can imagine that you might want to
change the setup a few times when you're still experimenting with the
whole thing. Doing that on the same infrastructure as the official
Debian archive network carries with it a significant risk to the proper
operation of the base Debian distribution (imagine you ask DSA to please
make a destructive change to your suite and they accidentally make it to
more than just your suite...). I'm sure you don't want that. Even
ignoring that, having your own infrastructure allows you to easily
experiment with things, without having to ask someone with the necessary
root login to make the changes that you need.
For that reason, it seems entirely reasonable to request that, at least
initially, new suites are installed on separate infrastructure from the
official debian.org infrastructure.
To the thief who stole my anti-depressants: I hope you're happy
-- seen somewhere on the Internet on a photo of a billboard