Mail archive
alpine-infra

Re: Building unofficial packages on Alpine build infrastructure?

From: Oliver Smith <ollieparanoid_at_bitmessage.ch>
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 12:27:00 +0000

> why a phone OS distribution is concentrating on KDE when they haven't even managed to check off the "makes phone calls" tickbox yet.

From what I have learned from various comments on our project is, that the people who say "but it does not make calls yet" would be the same ones who say "but it doesn't have a UI yet" and then go on with jokes about making phone calls with emacs and what not (which I do find pretty funny). postmarketOS is far from ready for being a daily driver and we're trying to be upfront with that basically everywhere (on the homepage, in every blog post, in github, in the wiki, ... - suggestions on how we can improve that are welcome).

There are people working on the plasma stack, because that is what interests them. I don't see any point in saying: "No, everyone must work on the telephony stack first." Personally I try support all efforts that bring the project forward, in one direction or another (tablets and using old phones as raspberry pis with sensors built in are fine use cases as well, that can also save the devices from being useless and thrown away). And I'm trying to see where we are blocked and push in that direction so we can move forward.

A binary repository is one of them, it would make the life of all contributors much easier (some contributors don't have access to fast CPUs and compiling kernels already takes hours for them), that's why I'd like to have a solution for that rather sooner than later.

So I've tried to politely ask with this post if Alpine would like to build postmarketOS packages, or not (which is answered now). And also only because making this possible was suggested by Alpine developers in the first place, I would not have asked otherwise.

> 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.

The idea is to use abuild *on the phone* to download and verify the blobs and build the firmware package, then install that cleanly with apk. If you are interested in this topic and have the time to spare, I would be happy if you reviewed the idea in the GitHub issue (also regarding Alpine policy and how we could make it conform to that).

Best regards,
Oliver


William Pitcock:
> 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 Sun Oct 29 2017 - 12:27:00 GMT