[Pkg-libvirt-maintainers] Bug#1064126: Bug#1064126: libvirt: install NSS modules into /usr

[Guido Günther]

Hi,
On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 12:03:47AM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2024 at 06:19:31PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> > I spent some more time testing the restructuring today, and it seems
> > to behave well. There is still one known issue with transferring
> > conffiles between packages under certain conditions, but I believe
> > that I have a solid plan to deal with that and I just need to
> > implement it. There are probably other smaller issues with
> > dependencies and such, but I think that the overall "shape" of the
> > end result is near-final.
> > 
> > The git history is still a complete mess though, and I really need to
> > polish that up before I feel comfortable asking the poor reviewers to
> > wade through it O:-)
> > 
> > So, here's my proposal: in two weeks' time, i.e. by August 25, I
> > will upload a version of libvirt that includes both the restructuring
> > and the usr-merge bits to experimental.
> > 
> > This upload will not be prepared from the official git repository,
> > but from my own fork. This removes the need to have all changes
> > squeaky-clean and reviewed before we can proceed, and allows us to
> > move forward with whatever I have ready at the time.
> > 
> > The idea is that this will give dumat a chance to validate the whole
> > ordeal and ensure that users will not run into file loss scenarios.
> > If any issue is detected, we'll have the opportunity to rectify it;
> > if not, we can feel safer about taking a bit longer to polish and
> > land the restructuring.
> > 
> > I will of course endeavor to get the branch in a reviewable shape, or
> > as close to that as possible, before then.
> > 
> > Does this plan sound reasonable?
> 
> Since no disagreement was raised, I'm working under the assumption
> that everybody is okay with this plan.
> 
> I've made some more progress over the past week, including fixing the
> known bug mentioned earlier and integrating the usr-merge patches.
> Things generally seem to work fine.
> 
> I have however realized that there is an obstacle to enacting the
> plan as outlined above: the restructuring involves introducing
> several new binary packages, which in turns requires a trip through
> the NEW queue, and I'm not (yet) a Debian Developer so I can't
> prepare the upload myself.
> 
> Guido, would you be willing to take care of that part?

I can sure handle the upload. Would be nice to be able to look at the
diff (commits don't need to be cleaned up yet) as early as possible.
Cheers,
 -- Guido

> 
> I still need to clean up the git history, but given the current
> status I'm feeling relatively optimistic and I'm convinced I should
> be able to cobble together something good enough for a proper (draft)
> merge request by either Friday or Saturday evening.
> 
> That'd give Guido approximately a day to sanity-check the changes and
> prepare the upload if we want to stick to the original schedule.
> Hopefully that's workable.
> 
> Also note that the implementation of usr-merge I've imported is the
> same proposed by Michael, which can't be sensibly backported to older
> releases. As mentioned in [59] this might be a problem for Ubuntu, so
> I'm CC'ing Christian again in order to give him another chance to
> speak up.
> 
> 
> [59] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1064126#59
> -- 
> Andrea Bolognani <eof at kiyuko.org>
> Resistance is futile, you will be garbage collected.