Re: Parametrizing more vendor variation into the origin files
On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 2:11 AM Guillem Jover wrote:
> 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.
This sounds like the correct way to go to me.
> 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)?
There are definitely overlay distributions, most of those put existing
Debian mirrors in the apt sources though.
> c) re-signing source packages (.dsc) even when not modifying them, so
> we need to inherit the member/archive keyrings from the parent(s)
> distribution(s)?
Through the derivatives census patch scripts, I discovered that some
distributions definitely did this some time ago, I forget which ones
though. It is a reasonable approach for distros that gate their
incoming packages on developer signatures.
> e) using a bug closure marker different than the default «Closes:...»?
Ubuntu are using LP: 1234567 as you mentioned already.
I took a quick look at the derivatives patches and quickly discovered
Purism's PureOS uses things like this:
Closes: Bug#881337, PureOS:T249.
The Bug appears to be a Debian bug while T249 points at the PureOS tracker:
https://bugs.debian.org/881337
https://tracker.pureos.net/T249
You could probably search the derivatives patches for other variants
of this by extracting the debian/changelog parts of the debian/ dir
patches and grepping those for numbers on lines that don't match
Closes/LP/PureOS or other changelog lines.
lw08.debian.org:/srv/qa.debian.org/export/derivs/census/var/patches/**/*.debian.patch
--
bye,
pabs
https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Reply to: