Mail archive
alpine-infra

Re: Building unofficial packages on Alpine build infrastructure?

From: William Pitcock <nenolod_at_dereferenced.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 01:16:19 -0500

Hi,

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Oliver Smith
<ollieparanoid_at_bitmessage.ch> wrote:
> Dear Alpinists,
>
>
> at least Timo Teras[1] and William Pitcock[2] have proposed, that the
> Alpine package building infrastructure could be used for unofficial
> Alpine packages, when "the new build infrastructure [is] in place".

Yes, I have indeed proposed this.
But the new build infrastructure is not yet in place.

> So postmarketOS[3] is a thin layer on top of Alpine, that provides
> packages to make it work on mobile devices. Currently every user is
> compiling these from source, but we would be very grateful if we could
> use Alpine's infrastructure for building binary packages. That way we
> could focus more on actual development and giving back to Alpine (e.g.
> together with Adélie, we're currently upstreaming KDE), instead of
> duplicating the effort.

I proposed that we (Adelie and pmOS) might work together, but
unfortunately our requirements are incompatible (LTS vs. non-LTS
KDE).[1]

> For reference, here[4] are our current aports. Especially the device
> folder makes no sense to be upstreamed. We will not build packages that
> contain closed source blobs (our firmware aports will be refactored to
> download these files at installation time[5]).
>
> Thoughts?

Well, I mean, I don't want to tell you what to do, but it seems
foolish to use a package manager which can cryptographically verify
package contents just to download a script which downloads the real
files.
At least, any firmware I would be loading into my phone, I would want
to be delivered to me in a signed package, not downloaded at install
time.
Not to mention that packages which download files in their
post-install scripts are a violation of Alpine policy.

William

[1]: Since we're using footnotes, I might ponder out loud why a phone
OS distribution is concentrating on KDE when they haven't even managed
to check off the "makes phone calls" tickbox yet.[2]
[2]: While I am not involved in sysadmin tasks around here, I am
pretty sure that any such collaboration on buildserver usage would be
dependent on the derivative proving it's viability first. See also
checking off the "makes phone calls" tickbox.
Received on Fri Oct 27 2017 - 01:16:19 GMT