Additionally, one could imagine a DSL to:
- make minor changes to the source package before building (adjust
dependencies, apply an additional patch, etc.)
- tell sbuild that some build-dependencies must be pulled from backported
packages
Jelmer, did you already think about that? Is there a way one could help
you?
There's probably a large number of packages that just require a
rebuild (+ test with autopkgtest) to be backported.
On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 11:39:06AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
There's probably a large number of packages that just require a
rebuild (+ test with autopkgtest) to be backported.
uploading to -backports also implies the promise to keep maintaining that backport until the next release is out... I'm not sure that part of the upload should be automated nor forgotten ;)
Oh I wasn't thinking about uploading to the official backports suite.
In the same spirit as the fresh-{releases,snapshots} suites provided by janitor, I was thinking about an automatically-generated backports
suite.
uploading to -backports also implies the promise to keep maintaining that backport until the next release is out... I'm not sure that part of the upload should be automated nor forgotten ;)Oh I wasn't thinking about uploading to the official backports suite.
In the same spirit as the fresh-{releases,snapshots} suites provided by janitor, I was thinking about an automatically-generated backports
suite.
Watching the talk[0] on automatically providing packages for new
upstream releases and new upstream git snapshots, I wondered if the same tooling could be used to automatically provide stable backports
for packages in unstable/testing.
There's probably a large number of packages that just require a
rebuild (+ test with autopkgtest) to be backported.
Additionally, one could imagine a DSL to:
- make minor changes to the source package before building (adjust
dependencies, apply an additional patch, etc.)
- tell sbuild that some build-dependencies must be pulled from backported
packages
Jelmer, did you already think about that? Is there a way one could help
you?
I think one of the main challenges here is to make sure that the
dependencies for packages in unstable/testing are correct.
On 30.08.21 15:49, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
I think one of the main challenges here is to make sure that the
dependencies for packages in unstable/testing are correct.
Why wouldn't they be correct, though? If it's less strict than it
should
be, then that is a bug. And if it's too strict, experimentation with
lowered requirements sounds somewhat dangerous. The approach I chose
was
to just backport any necessary dependencies as well.
(...backport any necessary dependencies within reason, that is. For
example, some Python packages always have bleeding edge build
dependencies in setup.py thanks to dependabot, but a diligent
maintainer
will downgrade those to whatever the doc say is sufficient, I hope.)
I'm really amazed by all the great work done around the Debian Janitor project. It's great to see how it focuses the maintainer's work on where there's some actual value with having humans in the loop.
Watching the talk[0] on automatically providing packages for new
upstream releases and new upstream git snapshots, I wondered if the same tooling could be used to automatically provide stable backports
for packages in unstable/testing.
There's probably a large number of packages that just require a
rebuild (+ test with autopkgtest) to be backported.
Additionally, one could imagine a DSL to:
- make minor changes to the source package before building (adjust
dependencies, apply an additional patch, etc.)
- tell sbuild that some build-dependencies must be pulled from backported
packages
Jelmer, did you already think about that? Is there a way one could help
you?
Hi Lucas,
On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 11:39:06AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
[...]
Jelmer, did you already think about that? Is there a way one could help
you?
Reviving this thread that's more than a year old...
[...]
Known issues that still need to be addressed:
* backport from testing rather than unstable
* rename the suite from bullseye-backports to something that does't
clash with the official backports (version strings are already different)
* finish processing the rest of the archive
* better sanity checking to prevent too many dependencies from being
pulled in
I haven't decided on a name yet. "auto-bullseye-backports", perhaps?
Cheers,
Jelmer
Jelmer Vernooij:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 11:39:06AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
[...]
Jelmer, did you already think about that? Is there a way one could help you?
Reviving this thread that's more than a year old...
[...]
Known issues that still need to be addressed:
* backport from testing rather than unstable
* rename the suite from bullseye-backports to something that does't
clash with the official backports (version strings are already different)
* finish processing the rest of the archive
* better sanity checking to prevent too many dependencies from being
pulled in
I haven't decided on a name yet. "auto-bullseye-backports", perhaps?
To save the janitor some compute power, would make sense to skip packages that have already been backported? E.g., I noted there is an auto-backport for debhelper even though debhelper is "in sync" between stable-backports
and testing (or even sid at the moment).
Other than that, I think this looks great and I hope this will help make backporting more smooth.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 300 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 69:04:49 |
Calls: | 6,712 |
Files: | 12,244 |
Messages: | 5,356,701 |