Re: Go issues wrt. Debian infrastructure: moving forward

[Moritz Mühlenhoff <jmm@inutil.org>]

On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 07:16:19PM +0200, Clément Hermann wrote:
> I'm fine with IRC too. I think the dak implementation would be the best
> (along with a script or something that can tell which packages to
> binNMU, but with the proper field set d/control for binaries that
> doesn't sound difficult).
> 
> What I'd hope to get from such a session would be possible, acceptable
> workaround if the dak issue is (as it seems) too complicated to fix in a
> timely manner.

I think only FTP masters have the necessary insight to answer that.

The important thing is that in end binNMUs are made, a script which
in the end performs sourceful uploads would cause too much churn.

> For instance, a script that would get all the needed source package and
> upload then whenever someone needs to binNMU a go package. Or whatever
> makes security@d.o and release management life easier.

Ideally we'd have a script which accepts a source package name as a parameter
and the distro to target (like buster or unstable). The output should be
a list of wanna build commands, like

wb nmu $SOURCEPKG . ANY . $DISTRO . - "Rebuild for $REASON"

I think there might be staggered build steps. Like when liba gets binNMUd
and then libb (which uses liba) needs the same. So ideally the order of
wb commands emitted should reflect that.

With that setup in place, supporting Go and Rust updates in stable (and
the same tool will also be useful in unstable!) should be fine. Shared
libs would ofc be preferable, but withful thinking doesn't help us either :-)

Cheers,
        Moritz