Packaging of libraries

[Daniel Dehennin]

Dominique Dumont <dod at debian.org> writes:

> On Tuesday, 23 May 2017 18:30:20 CEST Daniel Dehennin wrote:
>> I'm starting to look at packaging zef to permit our users to install
>> whatever module they want in their home directory.
>
> Cool... I  started some work but never managed to get a proper solution. 
>
> Here's what I did:
> * used upstream repo and created package file in debian/sid branch
>  following this method [1]
> * created most of packages files

Ok, so the idea is to start from Git repository clones and add
packaging branches pushed only on alioth.

> Then I stopped because zef is not the right tool to create debian package from 
> perl6 module. But that should not stop you to provide zef to Debian users.
>
> That said, I still have to figure out how to handle pre-compiled files in 
> various upgrade scenario (rakudo upgrade, module upgrade) and removal.
> See the long story on github [2]

Thanks for the links, before being able to provide the minimal useful
tools we really need to figure out how to manage packages.

I'll read zef#117 until I understand and try to contribute and see with
people on #perl6/#perl6-dev

>> I used to create git repository for packaging named pkg-<project>.
>
> is it already on alioth ?

Not at all, just playing in my home.

>> As far as I remember, we choose to name all perl6 packages with a
>> “perl6-” prefix, like:
>> 
>> - perl6-zef
>> 
>> - perl6-meta6-bin
>
> Yes.

Great, I started to write an ordered list of module to package
somewhere. Now I need to remember where it is.

>> So, I'm using the “pkg-perl6-” prefix to name the Git repositories, this
>> permits me to distinguish from upstream repository.
>
> This point becomes moot if method [1] is used, and I don't expect /git/pkg-
> rakudo to contain anything else than perl6 package, so it may be redundant. 
> Take also into account that you can choose any name for your local repo. Only 
> git remote is important. Once the remote is set, you almost never deal with 
> it. So I think the pkg- prefix on alioth repo is not useful.

Ok, I was wondering since MoarVM and Rakudo have the “pkg-” prefix (only
NQP does not)

>> What should we generalise as a naming scheme?
>
> I'd rather not generalise this as a repo naming scheme on alioth. But that's 
> not a strong opposition.

I agree to make things simple, I keep my naming locally since I have
upstream and packaging repositories near each other.

I'll be glad to  use the “packaging is just a branch”, it will divide the
number of repositories by 2 ;-)

> If you want, I can push what I have on alioth.. (but I reserve the right to 
> choose the remote repo name ;-) )

No problem, I think we should start to write some TODO/README to explain
what we want and how we do things, then write tools to automate ;-)

Regards.
-- 
Daniel Dehennin
Récupérer ma clef GPG: gpg --recv-keys 0xCC1E9E5B7A6FE2DF
Fingerprint: 3E69 014E 5C23 50E8 9ED6  2AAD CC1E 9E5B 7A6F E2DF
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 357 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-rakudo-devel/attachments/20170524/f945b45d/attachment.sig>