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

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:


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.




Reply to: