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

Re: UsrMerge vs cruft

Hi Alexandre

Am 22.09.22 um 01:16 schrieb Alexandre Detiste:

It looks like UsrMerge finally broke the "cruft" engine for good.

As a mix of bash, Perl and ad-hoc C helpers,
it has be unmaintainable and mostly unmaintained for so many years.

request bug: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=941998
RM request: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1020293

I wasn't notified about the RM request and stumbled on it by luck,
but I won't oppose it, and will consider moving the
rule database that is now in cruft-common into cruft-ng;
although in a smarter concatenated format, to avoid
wasting inodes with tiny 1 line files.

Does cruft-ng needs to start providing a transitional "cruft" binary package
/ command for pre-existing users, or is this such a niche Q&A utility
(in the likes of adequate, piuparts, diffoscope, lintian) that it can go without ?

cruft-ng still has ways to evolve, for example by processing the globing patterns
for R/W files provided in AppArmor templates by more and more packages.

A transitional package which pulls in cruft-ng would have the benefit, that users are automatically upgraded to something that's properly maintained, so from that POV I think it would be worthwile.

Keep in mind though, that the package version of cruft-ng (0.4.54) is lower then that of cruft (0.9.42). So if you want to build the transitional package from src:cruft-ng you either need to bump the source version of cruft-ng to something >= 0.9.43, or do some version mangling via debian/rules by overriding dh_gencontrol.

I notice that cruft-ng ships the binary as /usr/bin/cruft-ng. So if the comamnd line interface are the same / similar enough, you could consider having the cruft transitional package ship a symlink or small wrapper script.


Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: