Re: plan for cinc, chef and ohai and some of its components packaging
On 2021, ഏപ്രിൽ 9 5:17:11 PM IST, Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org> wrote:
>On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 02:26:29PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 7:47 pm, Pirate Praveen <praveen@onenetbeyond.org>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > We had to remove chef due to trademark issues, details here
>> > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=963750
>> >
>> > Now gitlab from 13.10.0 needs the following dependencies from the chef
>> > umbrella.
>> >
>> > ohai | ~> 16.10
>> >
>> > chef-config | >= 12.8, < 17
>> >
>> > chef-utils | >= 16.0, < 17
>> >
>> > libyajl2 | ~> 1.2
>> >
>> > I'm planning to package cinc. Does it make sense to just package these
>> > required gems only instead of the whole cinc collection?
>> > Ideas/sugestions?
>
>Adding stuff to the archive "just because" is not sustainable in the
>long run, as every extra package implies potentially extra work for
>people working on team-wide efforts such as transitions. So I would
>suggest doing the bare minimum to cover what gitlab actually needs.
>
>On the othe hand I _think_ that there was a circular dependency between
>chef and chef-config, so maybe you don't have a choice. I don't know if
>it this has been fixed upstream, or if it could.
Thanks for the comments. So for gitlab, I will just need 3 gems - chef-utils, chef-config and ohai (libyajl2 is probably not required). I was able to build chef-config with just chef-utils, so I think the circular dependency is fixed (most likely by introducing chef-utils gem as I don't see ruby-chef-utils in the repo).
>> cinc project provides these gems via
>> https://packagecloud.io/cinc-project/stable
>>
>> and I plan to use these gems as source for the debian packages.
>
>FWIW the removed packages repositories were moved into
>https://salsa.debian.org/ruby-team/attic
For now I have disabled watch file and added a README.Source to explain how to fetch these gems from cinc repos. I'm not sure if this is strictly needed (as these gems are not renamed), but would be safer (as cinc explicitly checks for any trademark issues). It'd be nice if gemwatch can pull these gems from cinc repo instead of rubygems.org (like how we did rails-assets.org) so we can use uscan for new upstream versions. Or a generic option to pass repo URL to gemwatch service. Anyone interested in trying that?
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Reply to: