[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Parametrizing more vendor variation into the origin files


Some weeks ago I got contacted by a Devuan developer to request adding
a new dpkg vendor module (like in Dpkg::Vendor::Debian) to set correct
keyring paths. Then started pondering about the scalability of this

Ideally I'd like there to be no need to add new perl modules for
anything that is (almost) static data or is standardized, and defer this
to things that require programmatic logic to implement.

So on this category I'd like to parametrize for example:

1) keyring locations, even though I think I'd prefer to standardize
   their location,
2) backport version marker (such as /~(bpo\d+\+\d+)/),
3) bug closure patterns (like the "lp:..." extension),
4) bug report address (such as https://bugs.debian.org/$bug or
5) something else you might have in mind?

For these I'd like to ask the following. Is your derivative:

a) using a pathname for keyrings following the pattern used by the Debian
   keyrings (for archive and members, see below)?
b) re-signing the archive indices or mirrors Debian's (in case of
   overlays instead of full binary rebuilds), so we need to inherit
   the archive keyrings from the parent(s) distribution(s)?
c) re-signing source packages (.dsc) even when not modifying them, so
   we need to inherit the member/archive keyrings from the parent(s)
d) using a backport version marker different than the ~bpoN+M one,
   if at all?
e) using a bug closure marker different than the default «Closes:...»?

Depending on these, I'd just try to standardize the parameters, say
for keyrings:

    Even though these distinction seems rather Debian-specific.

    But this looks generic enough.

Otherwise I'd see these parameters being added as new fields to the
origin files, so that there's no need to add a derived perl module
for dpkg in most cases. For example, say:

  Bug-URL: https://bugs.debian.org/${bug}

  Bug-Closure: lp:\s+\#\d+(?:,\s*\#\d+)*

  Backport-Marker: ~(bpo\d+\+\d+)


Reply to: