[Pkg-ganeti-devel] Some questions about packaging

[Iustin Pop]

On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 04:52:12PM +0100, Guido Trotter wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 03:29:58PM +0100, Iustin Pop wrote:
> 
> Ciao,
> 
> > First, using svn-buildpackage we need to have the orig tarball as a
> > tar.gz and not just as a simple .tar. This is not nice to fix (we
> > provide a different tarball than upstream), and from next upstream
> > version we'll switch to .tar.gz; it's more consistent this way.
> >
> 
> That's good! :) :) Well, for now changing the tarball is not too bad, I've done
> worse things to "orig" tarballs! :) :)
he he :)

> > Second, I think there should be an ITP first, right? I'll open one. Do
> > we agree that the name should be ganeti-instance-debian-etch?
> >
> 
> LGTM
ok, will open the ITP.

> > Third, lintian/linda warn me that an arch-independent package installs
> > something under /usr/lib. I don't know a nice workaround to this, except
> > by extending ganeti's search patch to cover also /usr/share/ganeti/os.
> >
> 
> That's probably the right way to go...
ok, I'll add that to the ganeti pkg.

> > Also, should we make some relationship between what os-api is provided
> > by ganeti and what an OS provides? For example, ganeti recommends
> > ganeti-os-api version 4 (a virtual package); ganeti-instance-debian-etch
> > has a Provides: ganeti-os-api.
> >
> 
> I don't think there can be versioned provides.. Can there?

Good point. It seems not:
"So, a Provides field may not contain version numbers, and the version
number of the concrete package which provides a particular virtual
package will not be looked at when considering a dependency on or
conflict with the virtual package name."

Therefore, we could have the virtual names "ganeti-os-api-4", next time
"ganeti-os-api-5", etc.

But I'm also not sure about this section:
"All packages should use virtual package names where appropriate, and
arrange to create new ones if necessary. They should not use virtual
package names (except privately, amongst a cooperating group of
packages) unless they have been agreed upon and appear in the list of
virtual package names. (See also Virtual packages - Provides, Section
7.4)".

Could we say here that the ganeti packages are using these names
"privately"?

iustin