Bug#966573: progress packaging awscli v2
On Wed, Nov 02, 2022 at 07:55:51PM -0700, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
> > > - the aws-cli2-temp repo is based on upstream, not our awscli repo. I was
> > > intentionally being sloppy to quickly get through a test.
> >
> > Same. I essentially Debianized the upstream v2 repo from scratch,
> > pulling in some of your packaging metadata as it made sense. Given that
> > v2 is developed on a different branch and by now differs quite
> > significantly from v1, a case could be made for introducing a new
> > awscli2 package as a new source package and retiring the original awscli
> > package. However, the debian package metadata isn't really all that
> > complex, so it may not actually be necessary.
>
> Is there any reason to have both versions available to install at once?
No, there isn't. And both should be installed as /usr/bin/aws anyway.
At this point my v2 package builds as awscli_2.8.7-1_all.deb and should
be a direct upgrade from the current 1.x packages.
> > Fortunately, aws-lc isn't an issue. But s2n-tls remains one. Not sure
> > we're going to be able to do anything about that. The difficult thing
> > is that it's typically expected to be used as a statically linked
> > library, which means updates end up being tedious.
>
> Agreed, there's nothing we can do about it. But I think it's good news to be
> able to use OpenSSL and just have one highly security sensitive package.
I just uploaded s2n, so it should be in the NEW queue momentarily.
Sources are at https://salsa.debian.org/cloud-team/s2n-tls. So we'll
see how this goes.
> > I haven't pushed my changes anywhere, yet. Once I do, the remaining
> > tasks will be to any lintian issues or other obvious problems and get
> > these packages into NEW. I think they're in reasonably good shape, but
> > we don't have a lot of time before bookworm starts freezing, so I'd love
> > any help with these steps.
>
> I might have some time to help. Would it be useful to transfer my original
> repos to the cloud-team group?
I don't think so. There were a couple repos where you had made a commit
on the upstream branch, which I blew away in order to stay in sync with
upstream commits. So I'd need to force push. Either way, I think the
repos I have locally can be pushed to empty salsa repos.
Honestly, filing some of the ITPs would be quite helpful at this point.
We'll need to get the following projects packaged:
aws-c-auth
aws-c-cal
aws-c-common
aws-c-compression
aws-c-event-stream
aws-c-http
aws-c-io
aws-c-mqtt
aws-c-s3
aws-c-sdkutils
aws-checksums
aws-crt-python
Reply to: