[Tahoe-debian] tahoe package state

[bertagaz at ptitcanardnoir.org]

On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 06:10:19PM -0400, micah anderson wrote:
> 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 :)

I get your point. I heard tahoe was once again mentionned on the
freedombox mailing list, I guess I'm fine to differ the inclusion of the
features mentioned above seeing how hard people want it in Debian :).
I'll prepare the upload asap and will ping you when done, which should
happen before the end of the week.

bert.