[Tahoe-debian] tahoe package state

[micah anderson]

On Mon, 2 May 2011 17:47:28 +0200, bertagaz at ptitcanardnoir.org wrote:
> Now that zfec is ready to get into Debian (at least I believe), last step
> is to finish the tahoe-lafs package.

And now zfec has passed NEW! woo! Lets do this!

> At the moment it is in a shape where it might be uploaded. Still some
> issues remains :
> 
> - It has no initscript to be handled by the system

I think this shouldn't block uploading, especially on the first
upload. I think that there is a reasonable argument that some people
wont even want an initscript to handle things at all, and some people
will. I think the goal should be making it work for both, but in the
beginning, to get tahoe available in debian, we should put what we have
there and then work towards adding that feature.

> - It doesn't respect at all Debian's FHS, as a twisted app, every part are
>   included into the tahoe node directory, meaning logs are in a node
>   subdir, as tmp files are, and stored files are in storage/. To be better
>   integrated into Debian, logs should go to /var/log/tahoe/$NODE, tmp
>   files in /tmp/tahoe/$NODE and storage into /var/lib/tahoe/$NODE or
>   something like that.

Yeah, that is kind of gross, but I think is acceptible for a first pass,
and something we can work towards.

> I actually have resolved the first issue, I have a working initscript
> based on the one from openvpn (meaning it supports node's configuration in
> /etc/tahoe/$NODE, with or without different UID for each nodes). I'm just
> waiting for upstream to consider to include it into its source code.
> 
> I also asked upstream how friendly they would feel to modify their source
> code to better fit the Debian FHS, or if they have any idea on how to do
> that.
> 
> I'd be in favor to wait this issues to be resolved first, that might not
> be that long to come (I intend to commit on this), and this way we won't
> have to upload a first version without fixing this, and then some time
> after upload another one which fix them, plus provide a way to users to
> migrate from the first version to the second.

True, the migration would be the part that would be a little annoying. I
guess it depends a little bit on how long this will take to complete?

> Does this sound reasonable to you, or do you want so much to see tahoe in
> Debian that you think we should go on with the package as it is now?

I personally want tahoe in debian now, and I'm getting pressure from the
freedombox people who want it in debian too, but I think your judgement
about the timeline for fixing up the FHS stuff or how difficult it would
be to migrate are the more important things than my wants :)

micah
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/tahoe-debian/attachments/20110520/560e9f67/attachment.pgp>