Bug#1054009: RFS: runit-services/0.7.0 -- UNIX init scheme with service supervision (services)
Hi Nicholas, On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 15:26:50 -0400 Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > I'm unfamiliar with runit, but does anything need to be done in the > mini-httpd package to support your work in this upload? there's no need for anything on mini-httpd side, however I plan to do a QA upload (a NEWS file) and later a RoQA for for mini-httpd-run. I will really appreciate if you are available to help with this. I didn't think deeply but my plan is roughly the following: * have the mini-httpd runscript added to runit-services * QA upload to mini-httpd-run, with a NEWS file (package scheduled for removal + instruction to migrate to runit-services). > I'd recommend filing a bug against > mini-httpd-run shortly after the upload of runit-services_0.7.0, > because otherwise someone might potentially see a neglected package > and then adopt it. This bug would make the plan from your commit > message more visible and official. Right, I need to file a bug at this point or shortly before the QA upload * (after trixie): RoQA for removal of the mini-httpd-run package (reason: orphaned, low popcon count, maintained alternative exists, small package design rejected by FTP masters in the past) > > Also, thank you for thinking about smoothing the transition for users > by using Provides; although, I wonder how this will actually function, > because mini-httpd-run's version 1.0+nmu1 >> runit-services' 0.7.0. I'm not entirely sure how Provides works: my hope is that with the current unversioned provides, when mini-httpd-run is removed and one does "apt-get install mini-httpd-run" apt will at least throw a warning saying that the package has no candidate to install but another package (runit-services) provides it. > You're right, Conflicts isn't required and it doesn't seem like Breaks > would be appropriate either. Have you considered using versioned > Provides? This would make it more clear, in dependency resolution, > that mini-httpd-run is now an obsolete cruft package. I think mini-httpd-run is a leaf package but even if something depends on it might not be sensible to automatically bring in a package with 50 runscripts in place of a one with only one specific runscript. At least I want to give mini-httpd-run users the chance to read the NEWS file and react first. Regards, Lorenzo > > > https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#virtual-packages-provides > > Alternatively if the transition requires user/sysadmin intervention, > then why wouldn't a debian/NEWS file be a good thing? > > Kind regards, > Nicholas
Bug#1054009: RFS: runit-services/0.7.0 -- UNIX init scheme with service supervision (services)
Hi Lorenzo, Lorenzo writes: > Package: sponsorship-requests > Severity: normal > > Dear mentors, > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "runit-services": > > > * Package name : runit-services >Version : 0.7.0 [snip] >* Import the runscript from mini-httpd-run package: > - change the runscript to use the default config file > - d/control: runit-services Provides mini-httpd-run I'm unfamiliar with runit, but does anything need to be done in the mini-httpd package to support your work in this upload? By the way, thank you for writing such nice commit messages! https://salsa.debian.org/Lorenzo.ru.g-guest/runit-services/-/commit/566393e02ab8010405d14e38c0e02f4bea51afc8 I appreciate the thought and the openness that went into that work. One minor comment here: I'd recommend filing a bug against mini-httpd-run shortly after the upload of runit-services_0.7.0, because otherwise someone might potentially see a neglected package and then adopt it. This bug would make the plan from your commit message more visible and official. It will also give the Quality Assurance team the opportunity to support your plan, and this seems like it will be required for a Request of QA Team (RoQA) removal--unless you adopt mini-httpd-run and file a Request of Maintainer (RoM). Maybe one of these approaches is already part of your plan? Also, thank you for thinking about smoothing the transition for users by using Provides; although, I wonder how this will actually function, because mini-httpd-run's version 1.0+nmu1 >> runit-services' 0.7.0. You're right, Conflicts isn't required and it doesn't seem like Breaks would be appropriate either. Have you considered using versioned Provides? This would make it more clear, in dependency resolution, that mini-httpd-run is now an obsolete cruft package. https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#virtual-packages-provides Alternatively if the transition requires user/sysadmin intervention, then why wouldn't a debian/NEWS file be a good thing? Kind regards, Nicholas signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1054009: RFS: runit-services/0.7.0 -- UNIX init scheme with service supervision (services)
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "runit-services": * Package name : runit-services Version : 0.7.0 Upstream contact : [fill in name and email of upstream] * URL : [fill in URL of upstream's web site] * License : GPL-2.0+, BSD-3-Clause, CC0-1.0, GPL-3+ * Vcs : https://salsa.debian.org/Lorenzo.ru.g-guest/runit-services Section : admin The source builds the following binary packages: runit-services - UNIX init scheme with service supervision (services) To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/runit-services/ Alternatively, you can download the package with 'dget' using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/r/runit-services/runit-services_0.7.0.dsc Git: https://salsa.debian.org/Lorenzo.ru.g-guest/runit-services/-/tree/next?ref_type=heads Changes since the last upload: runit-services (0.7.0) experimental; urgency=medium . [ Martin Steigerwald ] * new runscript for zcfan. . [ Lorenzo Puliti ] * dhclient: - raise memory limit (Closes: #1035837) - remove the check file (Closes: #1038425) - dhclient: ship as disabled by default * new runscripts: - mpd, gpm + Thanks to Friedhelm Mehnert - nginx, lighttpd * Import the runscript from mini-httpd-run package: - change the runscript to use the default config file - d/control: runit-services Provides mini-httpd-run * d/copyright.in: add GPL-3+ and GPL-2.0+ text * update d/copyright * update the testsuite: - test only a list of selected services - update the testsuite for new services layout - d/control: runit-services depends on runit(>=2.1.2-56) Regards, Lorenzo
