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

François Févotte francois.fevotte at ensta.org
Wed Jan 31 11:05:07 CET 2007


Hi,

first, I'd like to apologize for having forgotten Giacomo in my first mail.

On 1/31/07, Eddy Petrișor <eddy.petrisor at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?

Yes, I don't see any other way to do things, unless you assume the
networked machine is running an APT-based distribution (or you provide
a portable, light-weight apt-get)


> 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).

Yes, I gues we might see lots of people complaining about the double
trip. But still, this allows keeping a totally non-networked box
up-to-date, which wouldn't be possible otherwise.

> I've looked over the code fast. Could you make the patch against the current
> apt-zip trunk from the apt-zip subversion repository [1].

OK, I'll do that as soon as I can (I'm at work right now, and don't
have any access to my debian box). I'll send the diff to you tonight.

> Also note that
> documentation should be updated, too (sorry if you already did this and I
> haven't noticed yet).

OK, I'll update apt-zip.sgml accordingly.


> Although we both kind of let the package rot to some degree. Maybe you'd like
> to join us in team maintaining the package? Or should we request for help on wnpp?

I would be glad to help you maintaining apt-zip, but I'm not sure I'll
have much time to do so. Besides, as you'll probably discover very
soon examining the diff, I'm not a shell expert (the changes I made
are actually kind of hacks in the code).
Still, if you think my help might be valuable, please feel free to ask me.

> On which connected machines have you tried your changes?

I made two kinds of tests: on my debian box at home (using zsh), and
on the mandriva machines at my work (using bash).

On 1/31/07, Giacomo A. Catenazzi <cate at debian.org> wrote:
> 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).

OK, I'll do some tests wtih dash. But I don't think ther will be any
problem since I used exactly the same kind of syntax as the existing
structures. However, I used a sed construct, which might reduce the
portability of the script (although I don't know to which extent).

Thanks,
    François


More information about the apt-zip-devel mailing list