[PureOS] Updating localechooser in landing/byzantium

[Jeremiah C. Foster]

On 10/7/21 5:10 AM, Carsten Schoenert wrote:
> Am 06.10.21 um 22:22 schrieb Jeremiah C. Foster:
> ...
>>> Well, the thing is still, there is no branch I can start a MR against
>>> (at least I think). There is not even yet a tag 2.93 on soure.p.s.,
>>> there is currently only the old master branch which isn't connected
>>> anyhow to the "mother" tree on Salsa.
>>
>> This is an issue with all packages on source.puri.sm - both pureos/core
>> and pureos/packages are not connected to Salsa or to Laniakea.
> 
> I think at the time PureOS was created it was the logical thing to do it 
> that way to get things started. So no big thing and nobody to blame for 
> anything. The project has grown and some things or workflows doesn't 
> scale well now anymore.

Absolutely. And I should have maybe used different words so that I 
didn't sound like I was blaming anyone, because that is not my intention.

>> These repo groupings (core and packages) likely no longer serve the same
>> purpose as originally - namely to be "complete and corresponding" source
>> code for all the packages in PureOS. We likely ought to have a plan or
>> create one for how we can have a one-to-one correspondence between
>> source code in a git repo and the binaries in the archives to make
>> support easier.
> 
> As done in other territories mostly also in different context, I believe 
> it's always a good idea to automate the stupid and boring things, like 
> syncing the ongoing work in Debian / Salsa which is the base for PureOS 
> or packaging building and do the QS on these.

+1

> So yes, building a new plan or at least adjusting an existing plan is 
> obviously the way to go.

+1

> I haven't a complete overview of other packages like localechooser, but 
> I expect there are more derived Debian packages which have a similar 
> situation. My current plan was to go through sync issues in landing and 
> work on the packages.

Much appreciated.

> So it might be a good idea to think now how the amount of work to update 
> and formalize all of these package should be done instead of doing a lot 
> of manual steps that are different only on a small subset.

This seems wise.

> A first set of ideas...
> 
> We set up a mirroring of at least the relevant branches (and tags) from 
> Salsa, that decreases additional work of adding locally the Salsa remote 
> and pulling update from there.

+1

> Subsequently renaming PureOS related packaging branches to "pureos/" 
> (localechooser uses currently "master" which is the same name as used on 
> Salsa so syncing isn't possible).

Shall we use "pureos/latest"?

> In a long term there should be no big difference on core-packages and 
> (pureos-)packages. But the current organization and structure on 
> source.p.s might help the various teams to keep their overview.

Agreed.

Thanks Carsten.

Jeremiah