Hi Mathieu,
As my regard to your comment #45, I did some minor changes for your further
review.
# tar tvf ibmpmlinux_3.2.2-1_20160302.tar
-rw-r--r-- root/root 19472 2016-03-02 16:25 ibmpmlinux_3.2.2-1.debian.tar.xz
-rw-r--r-- root/root 537644 2016-03-02 16:25 ibmpmlinux_3.2.2.orig.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- root/root 402482 2016-03-02 16:26 ibmpmlinux_3.2.2-1_ppc64el.deb
Here are my responses to your detailed concerns:
- Version for Ubuntu should be -0ubuntu1 rather than -1. This is
important, since there isn't an ibmpmlinux package in Debian currently
that we sync to ubuntu. Should there be, then it would be fine to ship a
package with a version -1ubuntu1. The 'ubuntu' suffix denotes it is an
upload for ubuntu.
Answer: Adding a long string "ubuntu" in the version field is not a good idea.
It unnecessarily expands a package file name, which could cause
troubles everywhere.
Particularly, PMLinux programs can work fine (compatible) for all Linux
variants that we support (RedHat, SuSE, Fedora, Ubuntu, and PowerKVM).
It seems no meaning to have PMLinux pakage with a "ubuntu" tag.
- If you must use an internal revision number following a - in the
filename for the include source tarball, then let's modify debian/rules
to account for this. Either debian/rules should go extract the specific
file needed for the version, or it should avoid that entirely and just
extract any tarball named ibmpmlinux_*.tgz
Answer: We have no special versioning need for PMLinux. The release-
version format "r.r.r-v" that PMLinux adapted is popular for Linux
platforms. By search, there exist more than a half pakcages without
"ubuntu" in their version strings on Ubuntu 16.04 and apt/dpkg can
handle properly at present. We hope to maintain the same if no change is
mandatory.
- Even the architecture name there is irrelevant if there won't be a
build for other architectures. This would mean it's possible to remove
all the variables aside from $package.
Answer: We have other builds in rpm format for ppc64 Big/little Endians.
The architecture mark is critical because PMLinux packages are "global"
and "exchangable": For example, PMLinux's RPM package is supposed to
work well on a Ubuntu system (if rpm tool installed).
- override_dh_clean: rm -rf there will not do anything, it is
unnecessary, since there will not be an ibmpmlinux directory to remove
(since things are extracted to debian/tmp, which will get cleaned up
automatically.
Answer: Commented it out as per your suggestion. Thanks.
- no need for preinst or postrm. Running verify or uninstall in
postinst/prerm is most likely wrong.
Answer: Not really. Those function blocks are necessary even if for a package
that remains still after installed, not to mention that PMLinux is "dynamic"
package. In PMLinux case:
1) preinst is to backup the old daemon programs for comparisons
later in postinst for whether to restart the process(es) in upgrade.
2) postrm is to remove PMLinux's temporary data storage and flexible
configurations etc generated/changed after installed that apt/dpkg are not
aware of.
Nothing above is handlable without those scriptlets.
Apt/Dpkg can not handle the necessity of restarting old daemons in an
upgrade, nor able to uninstall PMLinux with a upstart job after installed
PMLinux with a service of systemd in the past (scenario: the user might
rollback systemd to upstart, or vice versa).
- It is just as easy (not to say easier) to not run them at all and ship
the right files from the source of the package. Tuning configuration is
fine, but we should not create new directories, symlinks, and such,
since that short-circuits the package installation processes from apt
and dpkg. They will handle package updates and removing files just fine.
Answer: No. apt/dpkg can't do that fine, because PMLinux won't stand still
after installed.
PMLinux contains data-collecting daemons which do need to create a new
directory for data storage under its home path.
It is neither fine for tuning configuration. Configuration includes
init service rollback or upgrade (upstart <-> systemd) which may result in file
content & location changes that apt/dpkg can not manage at all.
- In other words, if the source already ships all the right files
(including a pre-made systemd service and reasonable default config),
then all the maintainer scripts (postinst, preinst, prerm, postrm) can
be removed. Otherwise, I would strongly recommend not keeping preinst
and postrm. Postrm is completely unnecessary if the symlinks are done
using dh_link (see below).
Answer: Pre-made systemd is an impossible task. PMLinux.deb installation
is a dynamic and adapting procedure. Nothing can be pre-made to fit such
a blooming Linux world with so many dependencies. As answered above,
systemd vs. upstart is one, PMLinux install vs upgrade is another, and
many more, like etc/cron vs spool/cron, Ubuntu vs non-Ubuntu layouts,
KVM Host/Guest vs LPAR VM ... an so on.
For instance, early Ubuntu releases support upstart, while recent ones
support systemd by default but can be rolled back to upstart. Therefore,
a pre-made systemd service file will ruin PMLinux's compatibility for
all Ubuntu releases. The maintainer scripts are required to handle
up/down grades.
- rather than doing symlinks in postinst/prerm; the links should be
created using dh_links, a file debian/links will have to simply contain
the source and destination for the symlinks to create. This is much
easier to maintain anyway, as you only need to list the source and
destinations for the symlinks.
Answer: If symlinks can be created with daily popular commands, why we
bother to use an internal "dh_link" whose usage is hidden in dark.
- also, I suppose the PMLinux.8 manpage should be decompressed and let
dh_installman deal with it in debian/rules, to get rid of this lintian warning:
W: ibmpmlinux: package-contains-timestamped-gzip opt/man/man8/PMLinux.8.gz
Answer: Fixed. The warning disappeared after gzipping with "-n9" (gzip
-n9 PMLinux-deb.manual => PMLinux.8.gz).
** Attachment added: "Enhanced PMLinux tar files and their result from
dpkg-buildpackage"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1448092/+attachment/4587057/+files/ibmpmlinux_3.2.2-1_20160302.tar
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1448092
Title:
[needs-packaging] ibmpmlinux
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1448092/+subscriptions
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
