[Apt-zip-devel] Re: apt-zip

[Giacomo A. Catenazzi]

Eddy Petrișor wrote:
> François Févotte wrote:
>> Hi Eddy !
> 
>> I discovered your apt-zip package a few days ago and found it very
>> useful. However, I thought adding an "apt-get update" functionality
>> could prove very useful since the non-networked box doesn't have any
>> way to get an up-to-date packages list (this corresponds to the
>> wishlist bugs #43622, #133117, #223372)
> 
> Well, that point is pretty tricky as pointed in those bugs. AFAICT from the
> first glimpse over the code, the update implies that you must make two trips
> to the connected machine to get an upgrade, too. Is this correct?

I've done an "apt-remote" that solve this problem in an other way: it
includes also all packages and actual version in the file to
export in the networked machine.
The download script is smarter and it need some temporary space for
the "Packages.gz" file.
It work well for the unstable distribution.

The problem: it is more complex, so I've some problems on portability,
and it requires more space.  And I'm not yet sure about the way to
install the packages: how to handle dependencies (they can be broken)
and new packages.

But then Eddy improved apt-zip, and I didn't care anymore about
apt-remote  :-)

>> I worked out a small patch that allows running "apt-get update"
>> through apt-zip. Although it is very limited (as to now, it only works
>> for the wget method, and requires using the 'tar' option) I think it
>> could be interesting to include it in your package.
> 
> I agree. I think we could include this as a first version that supports
> apt-get update. Although it might open a can of worms (people complaining
> about the double trip).

I don't think it is a problem.

>> I included the changes I made in a new NMUed apt-zip package that you
(...)
> On which connected machines have you tried your changes? Also note that
> documentation should be updated, too (sorry if you already did this and I
> haven't noticed yet).

I agree, it is alway better to send also the patch, and for tests, you
should run your scripts with dash (a simple POSIX shell, to check
against bashism).

ciao
	cate