Bug#877331: sponsorship-requests: nix/1.1.15 (ITP 877019) -- Purely functional package manager

[Kai Harries]

Hi,

itd  writes:

> Hi,
>
> Kai Harries:
>> The depender will break if the dependency is not at the path where it
>> used to be at build-time (by default /nix/store/...). All software
>> deployed by nix contains the full path to its dependencies. And all
>> dependencies are available inside the nix-store. The idea is to rely on
>> nothing that is outside the nix-store. 
>
> would `mount --bind /var/nix /nix` help? In other words, Debian package
> nix uses /var/nix. Additionally, the package ships a Debian.README which
> states that users need to either bind mount /var/nix to /nix or to
> disable binary downloads.

Yes, bind mounts should work. I had started a discussion on d-devel [1]
on the topic of the non-standard-toplevel-dir, and from there I got the
impression that a lintian override is the way to go.

>From the user experience view I would prefer not to resort to a
bind-mount, but I guess your proposal should work and is the next best
thing I can imagine.

Regards Kai

[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2019/01/msg00010.html

Bug#877331: sponsorship-requests: nix/1.1.15 (ITP 877019) -- Purely functional package manager

[itd]

Hi,

Kai Harries:
> The depender will break if the dependency is not at the path where it
> used to be at build-time (by default /nix/store/...). All software
> deployed by nix contains the full path to its dependencies. And all
> dependencies are available inside the nix-store. The idea is to rely on
> nothing that is outside the nix-store. 

would `mount --bind /var/nix /nix` help? In other words, Debian package
nix uses /var/nix. Additionally, the package ships a Debian.README which
states that users need to either bind mount /var/nix to /nix or to
disable binary downloads.

Thanks for your work.

Regards,
itd



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Bug#877331: sponsorship-requests: nix/1.1.15 (ITP 877019) -- Purely functional package manager

[Kai Harries]

Dmitry Bogatov  writes:

> [2018-12-29 19:54] Vincent Bernat 
>> > Probably not. Violations of FHS is violation of policy, and to get
>> > authorization to policy violation is long road, starting with discussion
>> > on debian-devel@.
>> >
>> > But, can't we just configure Nix to store it under /var/nix?
>> 
>> This would break the ability to use pre-built stuff and make nix
>> slow.
>
> I belive you, but just for my curiosity, what will break if we download
> substitute (nar, almost tar archive) and extract it not in /nix, but in
> /var/nix?

The depender will break if the dependency is not at the path where it
used to be at build-time (by default /nix/store/...). All software
deployed by nix contains the full path to its dependencies. And all
dependencies are available inside the nix-store. The idea is to rely on
nothing that is outside the nix-store. 

For example an ldd on bash looks like this:

$ ldd 
/nix/store/ij6wirzff9id7jr071p04w4nk6hksc3y-bash-interactive-4.4-p23/bin/bash
/nix/store/ij6wirzff9id7jr071p04w4nk6hksc3y-bash-interactive-4.4-p23/bin/bash:
linux-vdso.so.1 (0x7ffe1a7d5000)
libreadline.so.7 => 
/nix/store/vvwxc17kpc39qbcz7qp7mkqa7fr0my84-readline-7.0p5/lib/libreadline.so.7 
(0x7f25b0593000)
libhistory.so.7 => 
/nix/store/vvwxc17kpc39qbcz7qp7mkqa7fr0my84-readline-7.0p5/lib/libhistory.so.7 
(0x7f25b0389000)
libncursesw.so.6 => 
/nix/store/2lbhgxlrhgnij2c3bm719xidymmhp0m0-ncurses-6.1-20181027/lib/libncursesw.so.6
 (0x7f25b011a000)
libdl.so.2 => 
/nix/store/7gx4kiv5m0i7d7qkixq2cwzbr10lvxwc-glibc-2.27/lib/libdl.so.2 
(0x7f25aff16000)
libc.so.6 => 
/nix/store/7gx4kiv5m0i7d7qkixq2cwzbr10lvxwc-glibc-2.27/lib/libc.so.6 
(0x7f25afb62000)

/nix/store/7gx4kiv5m0i7d7qkixq2cobra10lvxwc-glibc-2.27/lib/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 
=> 
/nix/store/7gx4kiv5m0i7d7qkixq2cwzbr10lvxwc-glibc-2.27/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2
 (0x7f25b07def000)

Regards, Kai

Bug#877331: sponsorship-requests: nix/1.1.15 (ITP 877019) -- Purely functional package manager

[Dmitry Bogatov]

[2018-12-29 19:54] Vincent Bernat 
> > Probably not. Violations of FHS is violation of policy, and to get
> > authorization to policy violation is long road, starting with discussion
> > on debian-devel@.
> >
> > But, can't we just configure Nix to store it under /var/nix?
> 
> This would break the ability to use pre-built stuff and make nix
> slow.

I belive you, but just for my curiosity, what will break if we download
substitute (nar, almost tar archive) and extract it not in /nix, but in
/var/nix?

In mean time, I took a look at your debianization. Great work. One
question:

 * You install developer stuff (headers, pkg-config files) in nix
   package. It is not needed for mere user, so I believe you should
   make three binary packages -- nix, libnix and libnix-dev.

   By the way, who are users of nix development files?

Bug#877331: sponsorship-requests: nix/1.1.15 (ITP 877019) -- Purely functional package manager

[Vincent Bernat]

 ❦ 29 décembre 2018 18:33 +00, Dmitry Bogatov :

> Probably not. Violations of FHS is violation of policy, and to get
> authorization to policy violation is long road, starting with discussion
> on debian-devel@.
>
> But, can't we just configure Nix to store it under /var/nix?

This would break the ability to use pre-built stuff and make nix
slow.
-- 
Don't diddle code to make it faster - find a better algorithm.
- The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan & Plauger)


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#877331: sponsorship-requests: nix/1.1.15 (ITP 877019) -- Purely functional package manager

[Dmitry Bogatov]

[2018-12-27 11:24] Kai Harries 
> > [2018-02-26 22:46] Andrey Rahmatullin 
> >> On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 11:14:37PM +0100, Kai Harries wrote:
> >> > > The source package you've uploaded is broken, as .dsc mentions
> >> > > nix_1.11.15-2~a1.debian.tar.xz.
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > What is state of affairs with packaging nix? I am interested in getting
> > things done, maybe I could contribute somehow?
> 
> We need to discuss with ftp-masters if we can get an exemption from
> the non-standard-toplevel-dir lintian rule (see this bug [1]). I am
> still planning to write a request to them, do you know if
> ftpmas...@debian.org would be the right address to start this
> discussion?

Probably not. Violations of FHS is violation of policy, and to get
authorization to policy violation is long road, starting with discussion
on debian-devel@.

But, can't we just configure Nix to store it under /var/nix?

> Furthermore I am waiting for the 2.2 Nix upstream release (see here [2])
> the master was not buildable for me the last time I tried it (see here
> [3]).

I will take a look.

Bug#877331: sponsorship-requests: nix/1.1.15 (ITP 877019) -- Purely functional package manager

[Kai Harries]

Kai Harries  writes:

> Dmitry Bogatov  writes:
>
>> [2018-02-26 22:46] Andrey Rahmatullin 
>>> On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 11:14:37PM +0100, Kai Harries wrote:
>>> > > The source package you've uploaded is broken, as .dsc mentions
>>> > > nix_1.11.15-2~a1.debian.tar.xz.
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> What is state of affairs with packaging nix? I am interested in getting
>> things done, maybe I could contribute somehow?
>
> We need to discuss with ftp-masters if we can get an exemption from
> the non-standard-toplevel-dir lintian rule (see this bug [1]). I am
> still planning to write a request to them, do you know if
> ftpmas...@debian.org would be the right address to start this
> discussion?

Send out a request to ftpmaster.

>
> Furthermore I am waiting for the 2.2 Nix upstream release (see here [2])
> the master was not buildable for me the last time I tried it (see here
> [3]).
>
> Help with this or some of the other minor issues is welcome.
>
>
> [1] https://github.com/KaiHa/nix-debian/issues/20
> [2] https://github.com/KaiHa/nix-debian/issues/9
> [3] https://github.com/KaiHa/nix-debian/issues/21

Bug#877331: sponsorship-requests: nix/1.1.15 (ITP 877019) -- Purely functional package manager

[Kai Harries]

Dmitry Bogatov  writes:

> [2018-02-26 22:46] Andrey Rahmatullin 
>> On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 11:14:37PM +0100, Kai Harries wrote:
>> > > The source package you've uploaded is broken, as .dsc mentions
>> > > nix_1.11.15-2~a1.debian.tar.xz.
>
> Hi!
>
> What is state of affairs with packaging nix? I am interested in getting
> things done, maybe I could contribute somehow?

We need to discuss with ftp-masters if we can get an exemption from
the non-standard-toplevel-dir lintian rule (see this bug [1]). I am
still planning to write a request to them, do you know if
ftpmas...@debian.org would be the right address to start this
discussion?

Furthermore I am waiting for the 2.2 Nix upstream release (see here [2])
the master was not buildable for me the last time I tried it (see here
[3]).

Help with this or some of the other minor issues is welcome.


[1] https://github.com/KaiHa/nix-debian/issues/20
[2] https://github.com/KaiHa/nix-debian/issues/9
[3] https://github.com/KaiHa/nix-debian/issues/21

Bug#877331: sponsorship-requests: nix/1.1.15 (ITP 877019) -- Purely functional package manager

[Dmitry Bogatov]

[2018-02-26 22:46] Andrey Rahmatullin 
> On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 11:14:37PM +0100, Kai Harries wrote:
> > > The source package you've uploaded is broken, as .dsc mentions
> > > nix_1.11.15-2~a1.debian.tar.xz.

Hi!

What is state of affairs with packaging nix? I am interested in getting
things done, maybe I could contribute somehow?

Bug#877331: sponsorship-requests: nix/1.1.15 (ITP 877019) -- Purely functional package manager

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 11:14:37PM +0100, Kai Harries wrote:
> > The source package you've uploaded is broken, as .dsc mentions
> > nix_1.11.15-2~a1.debian.tar.xz.
> 
> My fault, GitHub doesn't like '~' in file names so I have uploaded
> the files with an '.' instead of '~'. I have uploaded a new version [1]
> that does not use the '~' in the version.
Thank you.
Please use verbose build output.
Please switch to the current debhelper compat level.
The Vcs-* tags don't point to the packaging repo.
You hardcode "perl5/site_perl/5.26.1/x86_64-linux-gnu-thread-multi" in
d/rules.
Does the package really need to include development files?
The source ships embedded code copies of at least bsdiff and parts of
boost. It even builds and installs bsdiff and bspatch binaries. And the
copyrights and licenses of this source are not listed in d/copyright.
Putting the whole LGPL in d/copyright is wrong. And it says "LGPL-2.1"
while the manual says "LGPL-2.1+".
src/libexpr/parser-tab.* and doc/manual/style.css licenses are not
mentioned in d.copyright. 

> > The version, 1.11.15-2~a1, is wrong for an initial Debian upload.
> 
> I have used 1.11.16-1 now. But I am not 100% sure that this is an
> correct version number for the initial upload!?
It is, why not?

> > Also, the version in the RFS subject is not the package version.
> 
> My fault I missed a number in my RFS. What should I do to fix
> this. Create a new RFS? (BTW I have now taken a newer upstream version).
You should retitle this one.

> > You need to run lintian from unstable on your package and fix main issues
> > before asking for sponsorship.
> 
> Only two warnings left:
> 
>   W: nix: manpage-has-errors-from-man usr/share/man/man1/nix-store.1.gz 1235: 
> warning [p 13, 9.7i]: can't break line
>   W: nix: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/nix-generate-patches
That's definitely not true.

E: nix changes: unreleased-changes
W: nix source: debhelper-tools-from-autotools-dev-are-deprecated dh ... --with 
autotools_dev (line 18)
P: nix source: package-uses-old-debhelper-compat-version 9
W: nix source: build-depends-on-obsolete-package build-depends: dh-systemd => 
use debhelper (>= 9.20160709)
I: nix source: out-of-date-standards-version 3.9.8 (released 2016-04-06) 
(current is 4.1.3)
I: nix source: testsuite-autopkgtest-missing
X: nix source: upstream-metadata-file-is-missing
P: nix source: debian-watch-does-not-check-gpg-signature
I: nix: hardening-no-fortify-functions usr/bin/nix-daemon
I: nix: hardening-no-fortify-functions usr/bin/nix-instantiate
I: nix: hardening-no-fortify-functions usr/bin/nix-store
I: nix: hardening-no-fortify-functions ... use --no-tag-display-limit to see 
all (or pipe to a file/program)
I: nix: spelling-error-in-binary usr/bin/nix-collect-garbage refered referred
I: nix: hardening-no-bindnow usr/bin/nix-collect-garbage
I: nix: spelling-error-in-binary usr/bin/nix-daemon refered referred
I: nix: hardening-no-bindnow usr/bin/nix-daemon
I: nix: spelling-error-in-binary usr/bin/nix-env refered referred
I: nix: hardening-no-bindnow usr/bin/nix-env
I: nix: spelling-error-in-binary ... use --no-tag-display-limit to see all (or 
pipe to a file/program)
I: nix: hardening-no-bindnow ... use --no-tag-display-limit to see all (or pipe 
to a file/program)
P: nix: no-upstream-changelog
I: nix: spelling-error-in-copyright GNU Library Public License GNU Library 
General Public License
W: nix: package-installs-deprecated-upstart-configuration 
etc/init/nix-daemon.conf
W: nix: pkg-config-unavailable-for-cross-compilation 
usr/lib/pkgconfig/nix-expr.pc
W: nix: pkg-config-unavailable-for-cross-compilation 
usr/lib/pkgconfig/nix-main.pc
W: nix: pkg-config-unavailable-for-cross-compilation 
usr/lib/pkgconfig/nix-store.pc
W: nix: manpage-has-errors-from-man usr/share/man/man1/nix-store.1.gz 1235: 
warning [p 13, 9.7i]: can't break line
W: nix: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/nix-generate-patches
I: nix: possible-documentation-but-no-doc-base-registration
X: nix: shlib-calls-exit usr/lib/nix/libnixexpr.so
X: nix: shlib-calls-exit usr/lib/nix/libnixmain.so
X: nix: shlib-calls-exit usr/lib/nix/libnixstore.so
I: nix: systemd-service-file-missing-documentation-key 
lib/systemd/system/nix-daemon.service
I: nix: systemd-service-file-missing-install-key 
lib/systemd/system/nix-daemon.service


-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#877331: sponsorship-requests: nix/1.1.15 (ITP 877019) -- Purely functional package manager

[KAction]

>   W: nix: manpage-has-errors-from-man usr/share/man/man1/nix-store.1.gz 1235: 
> warning [p 13, 9.7i]: can't break line
>   W: nix: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/nix-generate-patches
> 
> I hope this is acceptable.

// I am not DD; did not read source.

As far as I know, lintian warnings and errors are never acceptable. And,
as a user, I understand, why missing manpage is treated so severe.

I am not familiar with nix, but if nix-generate-patches is not
end-user-command, you could install it into private directory, that
would fix second warning.
 

Bug#877331: sponsorship-requests: nix/1.1.15 (ITP 877019) -- Purely functional package manager

[Kai Harries]

Hello,

Andrey Rahmatullin  writes:

> Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
>
> The source package you've uploaded is broken, as .dsc mentions
> nix_1.11.15-2~a1.debian.tar.xz.

My fault, GitHub doesn't like '~' in file names so I have uploaded
the files with an '.' instead of '~'. I have uploaded a new version [1]
that does not use the '~' in the version.


> I don't think the package is even buildable tbh, looking at
> debian/nix-docs.docs.

This was an accident. I somehow overlooked this file that was generated
by dh_make. I have removed it now.

> The version, 1.11.15-2~a1, is wrong for an initial Debian upload.

I have used 1.11.16-1 now. But I am not 100% sure that this is an
correct version number for the initial upload!?

> Also, the version in the RFS subject is not the package version.

My fault I missed a number in my RFS. What should I do to fix
this. Create a new RFS? (BTW I have now taken a newer upstream version).

> You need to run lintian from unstable on your package and fix main issues
> before asking for sponsorship.

Only two warnings left:

  W: nix: manpage-has-errors-from-man usr/share/man/man1/nix-store.1.gz 1235: 
warning [p 13, 9.7i]: can't break line
  W: nix: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/nix-generate-patches

I hope this is acceptable.

>
> -- 
> WBR, wRAR

[1] https://github.com/KaiHa/nix-debian/releases/tag/1.11.16-1

Bug#877331: sponsorship-requests: nix/1.1.15 (ITP 877019) -- Purely functional package manager

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

Control: tags -1 + moreinfo

The source package you've uploaded is broken, as .dsc mentions
nix_1.11.15-2~a1.debian.tar.xz.
I don't think the package is even buildable tbh, looking at
debian/nix-docs.docs.
The version, 1.11.15-2~a1, is wrong for an initial Debian upload.
Also, the version in the RFS subject is not the package version.
You need to run lintian from unstable on your package and fix main issues
before asking for sponsorship.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#877331: sponsorship-requests: nix/1.1.15 (ITP 877019) -- Purely functional package manager

[Kai Harries]

Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist

Dear Mentors,

I am looking for a sponsor for my package "nix":

* Package name: nix
  Version : 1.1.15
  Upstream Author : Eelco Dolstra
* URL : https://nixos.org/nix/
* License : LGPL v2.1
  Section : devel

It builds those binary packages:

  nix - Purely functional package manager
  
To access further information about this package, please visit the
following URL:

https://github.com/KaiHa/nix-debian/releases

If you haven't been exposed to Nix up to now, this [1] might give you a
good introduction to Nix.

It is a really impressive tool and I would be happy if it could be
included into Debian. 

[1] https://nixos.org/nix/about.html

Regards,

Kai Harries