Re: [Pkg-utopia-maintainers] dbus-broker Debian packaging

[David Herrmann]

Hey Daniele!

On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 12:20 AM, Daniele Nicolodi  wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On 04/03/2018 05:08, David Herrmann wrote:
>> *) The dbus-broker project uses submodules to link some code
>> statically. The easiest way to build dbus-broker is using our .tar.xz
>> tarballs provided with each release [1]. These include *all* source
>> files, including the right submodule versions. If you want to build
>> from -git directly, though, I recommend the strategy used by the
>> arch-linux -git package [2]. They check out all required repositories
>> and then use git to check out the correct revisions. This is
>> definitely more flexible than the tarball based approach, but also
>> needs slightly more maintenance, as you need to stay up-to-date with
>> the submodules.
>
> Debian tooling handles the submodules fine, I just compared the released
> tarball for v11 with the one generated by the Debian tooling from the
> git repository and they are substantially identical.

Very nice! Sadly, other distro's are not on-par there, yet. Which is
why we provide the tarball..

> However, I noticed that not all the submodules have the same license as
> dbus-broker, I need to complete the debian/copyright file. Also, I
> noticed that Red Hat is listed as the copyright holder. Is that true for
> all contributions?

dbus-broker is licensed ASL-2.0, as well as all submodules. Some
submodules are additionally licensed under LGPL-2.1+.
Also all the copyright statements should be correct. I think there is
no other than Red Hat so far.

>> *) The dbus-broker binary itself is definitely intended to be useful
>> on its own. However, no such users are known, and so far we have *not*
>> stabilized its API, yet. Hence, I would not split it apart now, but
>> leave it for a future extension. That is, something like a
>> `dbus-broker-core` package, which just contains the broker, but not
>> the launcher.
>
> I think that having `dbus-broker` and `dbus-broker-launcher` packages
> would be more logical, but I don't see reasons why the split cannot
> happen when the need will emerge, or when the API will be stable.

I agree. I leave it up to you to decide. However, I think leaving it
as `dbus-broker` is the more friendly user-facing name for the
package. *Iff* the broker itself is ever split off, it will only be a
dependency of other packages, so `dbus-broker-core` (or similar) feels
more natural to me.
We use `dbus-broker` in ArchLinux and Fedora to contain the
launcher+broker. If only for consistency, I'd recommend the same for
Debian. But really, no strong feelings here and all up to you. There
are arguments either way.

>> *) We are reworking the Fedora package at the moment. I cannot say how
>> the ultimate solution will look like, but the plan right now is this:
>> dbus-daemon is split into multiple packages. One packages
>> (dbus-daemon-utils) provides all the utilities (dbus-send,
>> dbus-monitor, ...).
>
> I would call this `dbus-utils`, but.. bikeshedding.

Right! That sounds reasonable. I adjusted our WIP plans.

>> Another package (dbus-daemon) provides the daemon
>> binary and its related tools (dbus-daemon, dbus-launch, ...), as well
>> as a renamed service file `dbus-daemon.service`.
>> For dbus-broker we provide one package that ships the broker+launcher,
>> as well as the dbus-broker.service unit file.
>> Lastly, we intend to recreate the `dbus` package as a simple package
>> that both dbus-daemon and dbus-broker depend on, and it provides the
>> daemon-xml files (config and policy).
>
> If there is interest for dbus-broker in Debian and the dbus maintainers
> agree, I can work on patches to do the same for the Debian's dbus package.

I am in discussions with the Fedora dbus-daemon maintainer, and I hope
we can sketch out the plans for Fedora this week. I will keep you
updated with any possible changes.

>> Depending on what the default setup for your system should be, you
>> should run `systemctl enable dbus-{daemon,broker}.service`. They will
>> then create the dbus.service symlink. Fedora intends to use the
>> systemd-presets for this.
>
> That would need to be done differently on Debian, I guess.  I will need
> to do some reading about what the correct solution would be there.

I think debian has the 'alternatives' system, which might apply here.
But yeah, I am no big help as I haven't looked into that much.

>> I hope this information is of help to you!
>
> Thank you for the detailed reply, it surely helps.

You're welcome! Great to see Debian providing dbus-broker!

Thanks
David

___
Pkg-utopia-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-utopia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-utopia-maintainers

Re: [Pkg-utopia-maintainers] dbus-broker Debian packaging

[Daniele Nicolodi]

Hi David,

On 04/03/2018 05:08, David Herrmann wrote:
> *) The dbus-broker project uses submodules to link some code
> statically. The easiest way to build dbus-broker is using our .tar.xz
> tarballs provided with each release [1]. These include *all* source
> files, including the right submodule versions. If you want to build
> from -git directly, though, I recommend the strategy used by the
> arch-linux -git package [2]. They check out all required repositories
> and then use git to check out the correct revisions. This is
> definitely more flexible than the tarball based approach, but also
> needs slightly more maintenance, as you need to stay up-to-date with
> the submodules.

Debian tooling handles the submodules fine, I just compared the released
tarball for v11 with the one generated by the Debian tooling from the
git repository and they are substantially identical.

However, I noticed that not all the submodules have the same license as
dbus-broker, I need to complete the debian/copyright file. Also, I
noticed that Red Hat is listed as the copyright holder. Is that true for
all contributions?

> *) The dbus-broker binary itself is definitely intended to be useful
> on its own. However, no such users are known, and so far we have *not*
> stabilized its API, yet. Hence, I would not split it apart now, but
> leave it for a future extension. That is, something like a
> `dbus-broker-core` package, which just contains the broker, but not
> the launcher.

I think that having `dbus-broker` and `dbus-broker-launcher` packages
would be more logical, but I don't see reasons why the split cannot
happen when the need will emerge, or when the API will be stable.

> *) We are reworking the Fedora package at the moment. I cannot say how
> the ultimate solution will look like, but the plan right now is this:
> dbus-daemon is split into multiple packages. One packages
> (dbus-daemon-utils) provides all the utilities (dbus-send,
> dbus-monitor, ...).

I would call this `dbus-utils`, but.. bikeshedding.

> Another package (dbus-daemon) provides the daemon
> binary and its related tools (dbus-daemon, dbus-launch, ...), as well
> as a renamed service file `dbus-daemon.service`.
> For dbus-broker we provide one package that ships the broker+launcher,
> as well as the dbus-broker.service unit file.
> Lastly, we intend to recreate the `dbus` package as a simple package
> that both dbus-daemon and dbus-broker depend on, and it provides the
> daemon-xml files (config and policy).

If there is interest for dbus-broker in Debian and the dbus maintainers
agree, I can work on patches to do the same for the Debian's dbus package.

> Depending on what the default setup for your system should be, you
> should run `systemctl enable dbus-{daemon,broker}.service`. They will
> then create the dbus.service symlink. Fedora intends to use the
> systemd-presets for this.

That would need to be done differently on Debian, I guess.  I will need
to do some reading about what the correct solution would be there.

> I hope this information is of help to you!

Thank you for the detailed reply, it surely helps.

Cheers,
Dan

___
Pkg-utopia-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-utopia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-utopia-maintainers

Re: [Pkg-utopia-maintainers] dbus-broker Debian packaging

[David Herrmann]

Hi Daniele

On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 3:00 AM, Daniele Nicolodi  wrote:
> Hello Debian dbus maintainers and dbus-broker authors,
>
> I'm working on packaging dbus-broker for Debian [0].
>
> In the packaging, I'm not sure in how many binary packages the project
> should be split.  I thought asking the authors and the dbus maintainers
> could be valuable.
>
> dbus-broker provides dbus-broker-launcher and systemd unit files that
> provide configuration files compatibility with the D-Bus reference
> implementation, however dbus-broker can be useful in itself to implement
> private buses.
>
> Should dbus-broker and the launcher (and the systemd unit files) be part
> of two separate binary packages?  Is the interface between the broker
> and the launcher stable?
>
> Should be the system D-Bus be replaced when dbus-broker is install?
> What about the user bus?
>
> Is the Debian Utopia team interested in team maintenance of the
> dbus-broker package?  I would also need a sponsor to upload the package.

Thank you for reaching out to us! I will just provide a short list of
things you might find useful. I hope this answers most of the
questions regarding the upstream package.

*) The dbus-broker project uses submodules to link some code
statically. The easiest way to build dbus-broker is using our .tar.xz
tarballs provided with each release [1]. These include *all* source
files, including the right submodule versions. If you want to build
from -git directly, though, I recommend the strategy used by the
arch-linux -git package [2]. They check out all required repositories
and then use git to check out the correct revisions. This is
definitely more flexible than the tarball based approach, but also
needs slightly more maintenance, as you need to stay up-to-date with
the submodules.
Both ways are supported by us upstream.

*) The dbus-broker binary itself is definitely intended to be useful
on its own. However, no such users are known, and so far we have *not*
stabilized its API, yet. Hence, I would not split it apart now, but
leave it for a future extension. That is, something like a
`dbus-broker-core` package, which just contains the broker, but not
the launcher.

*) We are reworking the Fedora package at the moment. I cannot say how
the ultimate solution will look like, but the plan right now is this:
dbus-daemon is split into multiple packages. One packages
(dbus-daemon-utils) provides all the utilities (dbus-send,
dbus-monitor, ...). Another package (dbus-daemon) provides the daemon
binary and its related tools (dbus-daemon, dbus-launch, ...), as well
as a renamed service file `dbus-daemon.service`.
For dbus-broker we provide one package that ships the broker+launcher,
as well as the dbus-broker.service unit file.
Lastly, we intend to recreate the `dbus` package as a simple package
that both dbus-daemon and dbus-broker depend on, and it provides the
daemon-xml files (config and policy).
Depending on what the default setup for your system should be, you
should run `systemctl enable dbus-{daemon,broker}.service`. They will
then create the dbus.service symlink. Fedora intends to use the
systemd-presets for this.

*) There is currently a proposal to make dbus-broker the default with
F29 onwards. This has not been approved, yet, though.

I hope this information is of help to you!
David

[1] https://github.com/bus1/dbus-broker/releases
[2] https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/tree/PKGBUILD?h=dbus-broker-git

___
Pkg-utopia-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-utopia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-utopia-maintainers

Re: [Pkg-utopia-maintainers] dbus-broker Debian packaging

[Daniele Nicolodi]

I just pushed the packaging here:

https://salsa.debian.org/dnn-guest/dbus-broker

Cheers,
Dan


On 03/03/2018 19:00, Daniele Nicolodi wrote:
> Hello Debian dbus maintainers and dbus-broker authors,
> 
> I'm working on packaging dbus-broker for Debian [0].
> 
> In the packaging, I'm not sure in how many binary packages the project
> should be split.  I thought asking the authors and the dbus maintainers
> could be valuable.
> 
> dbus-broker provides dbus-broker-launcher and systemd unit files that
> provide configuration files compatibility with the D-Bus reference
> implementation, however dbus-broker can be useful in itself to implement
> private buses.
> 
> Should dbus-broker and the launcher (and the systemd unit files) be part
> of two separate binary packages?  Is the interface between the broker
> and the launcher stable?
> 
> Should be the system D-Bus be replaced when dbus-broker is install?
> What about the user bus?
> 
> Is the Debian Utopia team interested in team maintenance of the
> dbus-broker package?  I would also need a sponsor to upload the package.
> 
> Thank you for your time.
> 
> Cheers,
> Dan
> 
> 
> [0] Quoting https://github.com/bus1/dbus-broker/:
> 
> The dbus-broker project is an implementation of a message bus as
> defined by the D-Bus specification. Its aim is to provide high
> performance and reliability, while keeping compatibility to the D-Bus
> reference implementation. It is exclusively written for linux systems,
> and makes use of many modern features provided by recent linux kernel
> releases.
> 


___
Pkg-utopia-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-utopia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-utopia-maintainers

[Pkg-utopia-maintainers] dbus-broker Debian packaging

[Daniele Nicolodi]

Hello Debian dbus maintainers and dbus-broker authors,

I'm working on packaging dbus-broker for Debian [0].

In the packaging, I'm not sure in how many binary packages the project
should be split.  I thought asking the authors and the dbus maintainers
could be valuable.

dbus-broker provides dbus-broker-launcher and systemd unit files that
provide configuration files compatibility with the D-Bus reference
implementation, however dbus-broker can be useful in itself to implement
private buses.

Should dbus-broker and the launcher (and the systemd unit files) be part
of two separate binary packages?  Is the interface between the broker
and the launcher stable?

Should be the system D-Bus be replaced when dbus-broker is install?
What about the user bus?

Is the Debian Utopia team interested in team maintenance of the
dbus-broker package?  I would also need a sponsor to upload the package.

Thank you for your time.

Cheers,
Dan


[0] Quoting https://github.com/bus1/dbus-broker/:

The dbus-broker project is an implementation of a message bus as
defined by the D-Bus specification. Its aim is to provide high
performance and reliability, while keeping compatibility to the D-Bus
reference implementation. It is exclusively written for linux systems,
and makes use of many modern features provided by recent linux kernel
releases.

___
Pkg-utopia-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-utopia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-utopia-maintainers