Re: Bug#1001903: ITP: loki-database -- Like Prometheus, but for logs.
On 2021-12-19 07:30:57, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sat, 2021-12-18 at 12:20 -0500, Sean Anderson wrote:
>
>> The upstream package name conflicts with the existing package loki
>> ("MCMC linkage analysis on general pedigrees"). However, that package is
>> "dead upstream" (according to debian/watch), so perhaps this package can
>> get the name eventually. Name suggestions are appreciated.
>
> Since Loki is a relatively generic name used for many different things,
> personally I think no one package should use the unqualified name. For
> example the Loki C++ library distinguishes itself as loki-lib. The name
> loki-database seems a good choice for the software you are packaging.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki_(disambiguation)
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki_(C++)
>
>> Grafana itself live in another source package and will be a separate effort.
>
> Since Grafana was in Debian before and was removed due to being
> orphaned, outdated and RC-buggy, please note the extra steps required
> when reintroducing packages; base your new package on the latest
> version of the old package (such as from the old now archived VCS),
> unarchive/reopen and triage bugs closed by the removal and reopen and
> triage security issues closed by the removal.
>
> https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/grafana
> https://tracker.debian.org/news/994097/removed-260dfsg-3-from-unstable/
> https://bugs.debian.org/909592
> https://alioth-archive.debian.org/git/collab-maint/grafana.git.tar.xz
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?archive=both;src=grafana
> https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#reintroducing-pkgs
I should point out that there's already a separate RFP for repackaging
Grafana in Debian, as #923872. It's a challenge to package, to say the
least, but I think it's such a useful package that it should be properly
packaged.
Hopefully, however, it should not *block* loki's packaging. We should be
able to install loki from Debian packages without requiring us to also
package Grafana: the web UI could be run from Docker or upstream
packages or whatever...
And hopefully loki may be easier to package than Grafana (which doesn't
say much), but looking at the dependency list makes me run screaming in
horror:
https://github.com/grafana/loki/blob/main/go.mod
200+ deps, a dozen "replace" (which, in golang world, means "a fork of
an upstream library we vendor in here", basically).
>From that perspective, it's actually worse than Grafana, which has less
dependencies, believe it or not. But Grafana is also a webapp which is
where it really hurt us, because there you also need to package 300+
nodejs dependencies (!). At least loki spares us that horror.
Thanks for working on that difficult package, and let us know of your
progress!
a.
--
Qui vit sans folie n'est pas si sage qu'il croit.
- François de La Rochefoucauld
Reply to: