Bug#139710: Progeny apt changes and other apt stuff
On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 14:37, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> Is it OK if I copy this stuff to the BTS and/or deity@lists? I'd like to
> get others involved in the Great APT Merge effort.
Definitely.
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 11:27:27AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
>
> > The "four horsemen" patch adds four features to apt:
> > [...]
> > Any questions, feel free to ask.
>
> Thanks for the summary. If it's not too much of a pain for you to separate
> out the patches and file them in the BTS, that would be great. I'm trying
> to merge a lot of apt stuff at the moment and it helps a ton to have smaller
> patches to work with.
OK. I'll do the SSL part as a complete patch, rather than a diff
against Tomas's patch, and I'll try to split the others into separate
patches.
> > Longer-term, apt is really important to Progeny's future. So, we're in
> > a position where we'll be putting some time into apt enhancements. We
> > don't really want to fork from mainline apt, so we'd like to work with
> > the apt team to get those changes in wherever possible. The "four
> > horsemen" patch is a good start, so if you don't like some parts of the
> > patch or want to do things differently, let us know.
> >
> > Our biggest problem right now involves the apt-rpm fork. Apt-rpm and
> > apt-deb seem to be diverging, which makes some of our plans more
> > difficult. I'd like to work with you and the apt-rpm people to
> > reconverge the two. Even if the projects never merge completely, we'd
> > at least like to have some confidence that our apt-based code will work
> > without trouble on Debian and RPM-based systems equally.
> >
> > What do you think? Does this work for you, or do you have any concerns?
>
> My big apt projects right now are (in no particular order):
>
> - Colin Walters' / Isaac Jones' sigcheck/"apt secure" support
> - Conectiva's stuff
> - Progeny's stuff
>
> There is unfortunately a lot of overlap. apt-secure and conectiva both
> implemented a GPG method for signature verification. Conectiva's patch is
> _huge_, and they've changed a lot of common code, including swapping out the
> build system for automake, adding an embedded scripting language (lua), and
> adding their own Python API using SWIG. Conectiva have also implemented a
> few long-standing wishlist items.
Yes. I've been looking through their changes myself and have noticed
the same thing.
> Through tbm, I've been in touch with Gustavo Niemeyer
> <niemeyer@conectiva.com> and "Alfredo K. Kojima" <kojima@conectiva.com.br>
> regarding the apt merge, and they have at least provided me with information
> about their subversion repository so that I can run diffs. It's clear that
> I have my work cut out for me in attempting to merge all of this work:
>
> mizar:[~/src/deb/mine/work/apt] diffstat < apt-rpm.diff |tail -1
> 375 files changed, 116078 insertions(+), 39926 deletions(-)
> mizar:[~/src/deb/mine/work/apt] diffstat < apt-progeny.diff |tail -1
> 54 files changed, 7690 insertions(+), 263 deletions(-)
> mizar:[~/src/deb/mine/work/apt] diffstat < apt-secure.patch |tail -1
> 22 files changed, 1341 insertions(+), 157 deletions(-)
>
> I really don't know whether I can invest the amount of time required to
> merge all of this properly, so I'm going to need to prioritize things. For
> sarge, I think that the most important bit is signature verification. I've
> talked with walters about simplifying their approach, and that patch should
> hopefully shrink a lot before it goes in.
Regarding Conectiva, I don't think a full merge is going to be possible
in the short term, and I'm not convinced it's necessary even in the long
term. Feature parity and compatibility are more important, I think.
> I'd very much appreciate any help you can provide.
We'll do what we can. Of course, the caveat is that our schedule is
still often determined by what pays the bills. But, of course, apt is
at the core of nearly everything that pays our bills, which should
ensure some resources.
It sounds to me like step 1 of our cooperation will be for me to split
our "four horsemen" patch and submit them, which I will do as soon as
possible. Again, due to impact on libapt-pkg, I'll probably send you
the redirect and auth portions first.
Reply to: