Ague Mill wrote (20 Oct 2012 12:34:47 GMT) :
> My fear is: this repository is not going to be temporary. It looks
> like we are going to end up with a blurry process, and more
> migration work from our current mess.
OK. This is a fear I can very well hear.
Please let me try to convince you it's worth giving me a hand to do it
right, so that we get something better, in the end, than what we have
now, rather than the distasteful outcome you fear.
First, anyone who wants to discuss this any further, and/or get their
own idea about how realistic this option seems, and/or help make it
happen -- please first have a look at the two "Left to do"
sub-sections on our APT repository ticket:
https://tails.boum.org/todo/APT_repository/
Basically, while the inter-suites operations have not been tested yet,
and documentation is missing, I think the current state of this work
can be used as is. If the code reveals itself to be too buggy or
lacking important features (I'd be surprised, but let's consider this
possibility anyway), then I believe that respecting the naming and
workflow conventions we've settled on, even if we don't use our nice
glue / interface tools yet, should be enough so that the result does
not imply much additional work to import, if any at all.
I trust we can turn this painful situation into an opportunity to put
a part of our "almost finished" APT repository toolkit up to work:
I consider this as a way to move this whole process one step forward.
Help is welcome: playing with the Puppet module, testing basic
operations to check that the suite and pull names are in the supported
set, verifying that multiple pulls in the Pull: field are supported,
would help ensure what we deploy now is future-proof: closer to what
we want, and less of a temporary hack.
Cheers!
