I proudly present: first version of apt-release
- Subject: I proudly present: first version of apt-release
- From: elbrus@debian.org (Paul Gevers)
- Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 21:17:57 -0400
- Message-id: <[🔎] a0fe545d-3ee2-e931-712b-92ebb1b2b294@debian.org>
- In-reply-to: <c99b55f6-7797-8ffa-eb31-d531fc688ed9@debian.org>
- References: <2b462e26-aadc-9d22-fc52-3b90217f4f3f@debian.org> <20170126125025.GB1425@donald> <c99b55f6-7797-8ffa-eb31-d531fc688ed9@debian.org>
Hi Martin,
On 26-01-17 15:11, Paul Gevers wrote:
>> Until then, you can also push the tree to github or similar, where it's nice to
>> comment/discuss inline.
>
> I'll probably do that shortly then.
In preparation for Debconf and while at Debconf, I have been working on
a new implementation. I just pushed this to ?.
>> This is probably bikeshedding matter, but my feeling is that this new
>> option/variables should be --apt-series/SERIES/add_apt_series. I. e. if you
>> have "jessie-backports", then the release of that is "jessie", the pocket is
>> "backports", and the series is the combination ("jessie-backports"), AFAIUI?
>
> I think it is worth bikeshedding about, to be honest. I must admit that
> to me it isn't 100% clear which name means what. I have the impression
> it is used for different things in different contexts.
After reading this back after so long, I wasn't convinced about the name
series anymore because Debian doesn't use that. I decided to stick to
releases, but as this is only internal, it doesn't really matter, because...
>> FYI, Simon propopsed a more generic way to add an entire apt line in #851568,
>> which then would resolve any ambiguity like the ones above. The charm of
>> --apt-pocket is that it can stay a hardcoded value in a CI system, but the same
>> won't really extend for full series names. So maybe for this having an
>> --apt-source which gets the full line (maybe with some magic <mirror>
>> replacement from the existing apt sources) might be both more flexible and less
>> confusing?
>
> I'll let that idea sink in. I think that would mean that we would treat
> --apt-pocket and --apt-source quite different again, but maybe that
> isn't too bad.
I decided to build my implementation on this idea. For that to work I
needed to do some things slightly different for -pockets as well, but I
believe in a better way. Could you please comment on my work and see how
you like it now?
Paul
? https://github.com/paulgevers/autopkgtest/tree/gating-via-sources
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/autopkgtest-devel/attachments/20170808/dc481a43/attachment.sig>
Reply to: