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

Re: Proposal: Fixing non-free content issues via installer packages

On 14/08/06, Jon Dowland <lists@alcopop.org> wrote:
At 1154699141 past the epoch, Eddy Petrişor wrote:
> I don't think is too hard to make meta packages without
> using those, *but* I think it would be hard to catch every
> file in a tarball *and* place them in the proper places if
> splitting is needed.

Take a look at doom-package
in particular the make-wad-package script, for some examples
of doing this.

I will. I suppose you are willing to work on such a project, I am
willing, too, is there anybody else willing to get involved in
implementing this?

Maybe we should start a wiki page under Games/DataFilesRetriever or
something like that to gather all ideas, goals and whatnot?!

> Maybe we should implement some abstract retriever which
> would take the files from the local file system, a CD or a
> site ... you name it. The user would choose where from to
> get the file

Sounds good. I'd like such a framework to support displaying
a licence to the user and requiring it to be accepted, for
some things.

Yes, that is an important point in some cases, we could also use it as
warning displayer in early development stages ;-)

> (via a debconf question, maybe)

I don't think this should be done via debconf. It's too much
work with too many failure cases to do in the
{pre,post}{inst,rm} stages imho, and is a bit of an abuse of
what debconf is designed for. It also means running all of
these stages as root.

Indeed, good point.

> and then the metapackager would create the assiciated
> metapackage which, when uninstalled would remove the files
> added.

This is what doom-package does.

I just read recently, while translating on the Debian Installer manual
about being able to tell the package management that a certain
application installed from source is providing a functionality (well,
package name). I wonder if this is by hacking some files or if there
is a dedicated application which can do this...

The tricky bit is the fine line between having lots of hacky
code that builds and adjusts packages, or just depending on
the proper tool packages and having lots of dependencies :(

Frankly, I don't have a clear picture about in which case the second
scenario would apply and how is supposed to work.. I would appreciate
more details.

> >Yep why not. With some md5/sha1 checks to prevent invalid
> >installation.
> This is risky, we would have to whitelist *every* data
> file set which ever existed, including mods for new
> things, new transaltions, expasions, whatever. If the test
> results only in a warning that the md5sum did not check,
> that would be fine.

I was considering md5sum checks for doom-package, too. We
have a list of different sums for different versions of
doom2 IWAD files at <http://doom.wikia.com/wiki/Doom2.wad>.
There are some subtle bugs due to the differences in
versions (demo desyncs for example). It would just be to
inform the user, however, it would not be relied upon for

In that case is fine with me.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge" A.Einstein

Reply to: