Web lists-archives.com

Re: duprkit User Repository




On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 10:47:20AM +0000, Mo Zhou wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 03:31:21PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 09:58:26AM +0000, Mo Zhou wrote:
> > > AUR's PKGBUILD, Fedora/CentOS/RedHat's .spec, Gentoo's .ebuild,
> > > all of them are single-file format. The advantages of single-file
> > > format includes easy distribution, e.g. copying & pasting from
> > > webpages (you cannot copy a directory from a webpage).
> >
> > This only works when you don't need patches.
> 
> The design of "duprkit" didn't forget patches at all.
> 
> There are many ways to apply apply patches:
> 
> 1. Put separated patches to the Collection repository, as per the
>    collection specification: https://github.com/dupr/DefaultCollection
>    Then apply it manually in the header script of .durpkg .
>    This is similar to what AUR does.
> 
If I interpret this correctly, your idea becomes, "use a single file
package specification, except for the parts that live somewhere
completely external and separate from the package."  That seems like you
have *increased* the complexity of the packaging format, rathern than
decreased it.

> 2. If one like, just fold the patches into the .durpkg, which may result
>    in some extra lines in the .durpkg:
> 
>    ^ debian/patches/series
>    foobar.patch
>    ^ debian/patches/foobar.patch
>    -foo bar
>    +foobar
> 
>    And you may beed to change the source/format accordingly.
> 
>    The fact is, any plain file, as long as none of its lines starts with
>    a single '^', could be folded into the .durpkg or the .f822 file.
>    Detailed file format specification can be found in the code comments[1]
> 
> 3. Fold the patches into .durpkg, but not in the quilt format.
> 
>    ^ some-working-directory/xxx.patch
>    -foo bar
>    +foobar
> 
>    The header script of .durpkg is able to use it.
> 
> 4. may be more? ...
> 
Even these other points seem like they require some effort to "prep" the
packaging so that it exists in a single file and would require similar
effort to separate the components out.

All of this for "copy & pasting from webpages" seems like the epitome of
"style over substance".  Why on earth is copying and pasting from
webpages *so* important that the entire packaging format has to be
reworked?

If somebody is challenged by the obstacle of 'apt-get source ...' or
'debcheckout ...' then perhaps making the packaging into a single file
so that it can be copy/pasted from a webpage might not be solving the
correct problem.

Regards,

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez