Debian Bug report logs - #768073
ITP: lxd -- The Linux Container Daemon

Display info messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-technologies.net>

To: submit@bugs.debian.org

Subject: ITP: lxd - The Linux Container Daemon

Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 19:43:37 +0100

Package: wnpp

* Package name : lxd
* URL : http://www.ubuntu.com/cloud/tools/lxd
* License : Apache 2
* Description :

(quoting from the website, not necessarily going to be the package
description..)

The Linux Container Daemon

The new hypervisor isn’t a hypervisor, and it’s much, much faster
LXD
What is LXD (“lex-dee”)?

Take all the speed and efficiency of docker, and turn it into a full
virtualisation experience. That’s the goal of Canonical’s new initiative
to create the next big hypervisor around Linux container technologies.

Imagine you could launch a new machine in under a second, and that you
could launch hundreds of them on a single server. Hundreds! Now, imagine
that you have hardware-guaranteed security to ensure that those machines
can’t pry or spy on one another. Imagine you can connect them separately
and securely to networks. And imagine that you can run that on a single
node or a million, live migrate machines between those nodes, and talk
to all of it through a clean, extensible REST API. That’s what LXD sets
out to deliver.

-- 
Address:        Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH-3012 Bern
Email:          daniel.baumann@progress-technologies.net
Internet:       http://people.progress-technologies.net/~daniel.baumann/

Message #16 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Geert Stappers <stappers@stappers.nl>

To: 768073@bugs.debian.org

Subject: status request

Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2015 13:40:02 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hello,

What is the status of the ITP of "lxd -- The Linux Container Daemon"?

At https://linuxcontainers.org/lxd/downloads/ I couldn't find
the Ubuntu packaging stuff.


Groeten
Geert Stappers
-- 
$ host people.progress-technologies.net
Host people.progress-technologies.net not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #21 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Daniel Baumann <daniel@127011.net>

To: Geert Stappers <stappers@stappers.nl>, 768073@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#768073: status request

Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 00:08:37 +0200

On 06/07/2015 01:40 PM, Geert Stappers wrote:
> What is the status of the ITP of "lxd -- The Linux Container Daemon"?

working on it, soon uploading to NEW.

Message #28 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Regis Smith <rsmith@whistlin.com>

To: 768073@bugs.debian.org

Cc: daniel@127011.net

Subject: Re: Bug#768073: status request

Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2015 00:45:40 -0800

Is the LXD package ready yet?  Pretty please? :)

Message #35 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Deepak Tripathi <deepak@gnumonk.com>

To: 768073@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Status.

Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 18:32:50 +0530

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Daniel,
Any update on this? I have sent PM earlier ?

Let me know if you are willing to share to progress and if you stuck
somewhere we will work together.


--
Deepak

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #40 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Paolo Greppi <paolo.greppi@libpf.com>

To: 768073@bugs.debian.org

Subject: status of LXD debian package

Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2016 11:35:39 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi is there a public git repo for the packaging effort of LXD ?

Is there any blocking issue ?

Do you need any help ?

Regards,

Paolo

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #45 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org>

To: adnan@hodzic.org, 768073@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#768073: ITP: lxd - The Linux Container Daemon

Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 15:50:37 +0000

Hi,

This ITP is now over a year old. Is this package still being worked on?
Is there a public WIP repository or packages that people can see yet
please?


Thanks,

-- 
Jonathan Dowland

Message #50 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Adnan Hodzic <adnan@hodzic.org>

To: Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org>

Cc: 768073@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#768073: ITP: lxd - The Linux Container Daemon

Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2016 12:47:28 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi Jonathan,

When Daniel orphaned this package I got ownership of this ITP. As during
DebConf I've expressed a wish to work on it.

Due to a lot of things happening in my life, I was too busy and didn't have
time to work on it yet.

But starting today, I'm starting on my work to get LXD into Debian. Stay
tuned and thanks for your understanding.


Regards,

Adnan

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> This ITP is now over a year old. Is this package still being worked on?
> Is there a public WIP repository or packages that people can see yet
> please?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Jonathan Dowland
>

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #55 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org>

To: 768073@bugs.debian.org, Adnan Hodzic <adnan@hodzic.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#768073: ITP: lxd - The Linux Container Daemon

Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 11:16:24 +0100

Hi Adnan,

It's been more than a month already since you've said that we should
"stay tuned". Well, I can't hold my breath anymore... :)

Is there any update on the release of this package? Is there a temporary
Git repository which we could use for this packaging?

FYI, I have packaged and I have just uploaded python-pylxd (it currently
is in the NEW queue), which is needed by OpenStack Manila (ie: file
share as a service).

The upstream sources of python-pylxd are very much like the other
OpenStack source code I've been packaging for OpenStack: it uses PBR,
has {test-,}requirements.txt, and has (build-)dependencies on many
OpenStack components. So it makes a lot of sense to have it packaged
under the PKG OpenStack.

The main use of LXD, from Canonical point of view, is also so it can be
leveraged by OpenStack compute (ie: nova-lxd), to provision LXC
containers instead of using KVM. So, from my point of view, it would
also make a lot of sense to maintain LXD within the PKG OpenStack group
as well. I of course welcome anyone in this packaging group on Alioth. I
would very much like to be co-maintaining this package as well (even if
I don't know Go packaging so much).

As soon as we have LXD in Debian, I will add a nova-lxd source package
to the nova source package, so that it can depend on LXD itself, and set
the relevant /etc/nova/nova-compute.conf options.

Your thoughts?

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Message #60 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org>

To: 768073@bugs.debian.org

Cc: pkg-lxc-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org, adnan@hodzic.org, zigo@debian.org

Subject: LXC team take over ITP?

Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 15:52:15 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi,

I think that an ITP that has been inactive this long could be taken over by
another interested party without it being a hijack, all things considered.
(I think some QA script might move it to RFP soon anyway).

Adnan, how's it going?

There's a pkg-lxc team already. Since this package is/will be very inter-related to
LXC, perhaps it should be developed in that team? Team CCed. Are they interested?
Are you in pkg-lxc already?

What's the state of the Ubuntu package? Could that make a good starting point? How
much hacking before that would be suitable for an experimental upload at least?

-- 
Jonathan Dowland

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #65 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Anthony Fok <foka@debian.org>

To: 768073@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Debian Go Packaging Team <pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>, pkg-lxc-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org, adnan@hodzic.org, zigo@debian.org, Stéphane Graber <stgraber@ubuntu.com>, Michael Hudson-Doyle <michael.hudson@ubuntu.com>

Subject: Re: Bug#768073: ITP: lxd - The Linux Container Daemon - LXC team take over ITP?

Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 11:25:15 -0600

Hello all!

(with added Cc to the Debian Go Team as well as

On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 15:52:15 +0100 Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think that an ITP that has been inactive this long could be taken over by
> another interested party without it being a hijack, all things considered.
> (I think some QA script might move it to RFP soon anyway).
>
> Adnan, how's it going?
>
> There's a pkg-lxc team already. Since this package is/will be very inter-related to
> LXC, perhaps it should be developed in that team? Team CCed. Are they interested?
> Are you in pkg-lxc already?
>
> What's the state of the Ubuntu package? Could that make a good starting point? How
> much hacking before that would be suitable for an experimental upload at least?

I took a quick look at the package source obtained via:

    dget -u http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/l/lxd/lxd_2.2-0ubuntu1.dsc

This Ubuntu package is being maintained as an official Ubuntu package
by Canonical's Stéphane Graber, *the* LXC and LXD project leader
himself!
As such, the package has received much love, very professionally
packaged and very mature.

    E: Unable to locate package golang-any-shared-dev
    E: Unable to locate package golang-gopkg-flosch-pongo2.v3-dev
    E: Unable to locate package golang-gopkg-inconshreveable-log15.v2-dev
    E: Unable to locate package golang-gopkg-lxc-go-lxc.v2-dev
    E: Unable to locate package golang-petname-dev

golang-any-shared-dev can be ignored for now: it can simply be
replaced by "golang-any" or similar in Debian.
But wait, Ubuntu's Go actually has shared library support!?  What!?
How?  Wow!  Amazing stuff!  Definitely news to me.
See https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/juju-core/+bug/1508122
and the patch by Michael Hudson-Doyle.  Okay, Cc'ing Michael too.  :-)

So, I guess the first step would be to package
golang-gopkg-flosch-pongo2.v3, golang-gopkg-inconshreveable-log15.v2,
golang-gopkg-lxc-go-lxc.v2 and golang-petname, or simply grab these
existing Ubuntu packages, make a few minor changes to debian/control
and debian/changelog, file ITPs to the Debian BTS, and finally upload
them to Debian.

I do not see too many hurdles after that, at least I hope not.  ;-)

And since the Ubuntu lxd package is the upstream here, I like to think
of the Debian lxd package as the downstream derivative, so we will
likely always wait for Stéphane to release -0ubuntu1, then apply any
necessary patches required for Debian, and upload that as -1.  What do
you think?  :-)

Also, should the Debian lxd be team-maintained by the pkg-lxc team or
the pkg-go team?  What do you think?

Cheers,

Anthony

Message #70 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Evgeni Golov <evgeni@debian.org>

To: Anthony Fok <foka@debian.org>

Cc: 768073@bugs.debian.org, pkg-lxc-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org, Debian Go Packaging Team <pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>, adnan@hodzic.org, zigo@debian.org, Michael Hudson-Doyle <michael.hudson@ubuntu.com>, Stéphane Graber <stgraber@ubuntu.com>

Subject: Re: [pkg-lxc-devel] Bug#768073: ITP: lxd - The Linux Container Daemon - LXC team take over ITP?

Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2016 11:22:27 +0200

Ohai,

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 11:25:15AM -0600, Anthony Fok wrote:
> > I think that an ITP that has been inactive this long could be taken over by
> > another interested party without it being a hijack, all things considered.
> > (I think some QA script might move it to RFP soon anyway).
> >
> > Adnan, how's it going?
> >
> > There's a pkg-lxc team already. Since this package is/will be very inter-related to
> > LXC, perhaps it should be developed in that team? Team CCed. Are they interested?
> > Are you in pkg-lxc already?

Yes, Adnan is in pkg-lxc and technically the team is interested (given it falls into the same software stack) to have the whole stack available in Debian.
But I must admit I personally have no use for it and not enough Go knowledge to package it properly.

> > What's the state of the Ubuntu package? Could that make a good starting point? How
> > much hacking before that would be suitable for an experimental upload at least?

Yes, taking the Ubuntu package is a start is what we did with the other LXC components
and that worked out pretty well so far.

> I took a quick look at the package source obtained via:
> 
>     dget -u http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/l/lxd/lxd_2.2-0ubuntu1.dsc
...
> So, I guess the first step would be to package
> golang-gopkg-flosch-pongo2.v3, golang-gopkg-inconshreveable-log15.v2,
> golang-gopkg-lxc-go-lxc.v2 and golang-petname, or simply grab these
> existing Ubuntu packages, make a few minor changes to debian/control
> and debian/changelog, file ITPs to the Debian BTS, and finally upload
> them to Debian.
> 
> I do not see too many hurdles after that, at least I hope not.  ;-)

IIRC that's similar to what Adnan told me the last time we talked about LXD.

> Also, should the Debian lxd be team-maintained by the pkg-lxc team or
> the pkg-go team?  What do you think?

Whatever works? :-)
Stack-wise it's more pkg-lxc, language-wise pkg-go...
I'd guess it will need coordination to both, LXC and other Go uploads at times too.

Greets
Evgeni

Message #75 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org>

To: 768073@bugs.debian.org, Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org>

Subject: Re: LXC team take over ITP?

Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2016 22:59:56 +0200

Jonathan,

By all means, please take over the ITP. We've been waiting for too long,
and it would be a big plus if we could have LXD for Stretch. If it was
there, I could working out a python-nova-lxd and nova-compute-lxd
package, which would be nice to see in Debian Stertch as well.

We've been waiting for too long. At this point, I'd say that the first
who uploads to the NEW queue wins.

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Message #80 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Adnan Hodzic <adnan@hodzic.org>

To: Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org>, 768073@bugs.debian.org

Cc: pkg-lxc-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org, zigo@debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#768073: LXC team take over ITP?

Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 00:35:24 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hey Jonathan (and everybody else),

Sorry about delayed reply.

> Adnan, how's it going?

Awhile back I started packaging process. I basically re-packaged the LXD
Ubuntu package. As Evgeni mentioned it "is what we did with the other LXC
components and that worked out pretty well so far."

However, with LXD, build would fail due to all the "golang-* dependencies
which are missing from Debian. I also planned on re-packaging these as
well, but I got sidetracked by things from "real life".

>There's a pkg-lxc team already. Since this package is/will be very
inter-related to
>LXC, perhaps it should be developed in that team? Team CCed. Are they
interested?
>Are you in pkg-lxc already?

I think Evgeni, gave a perfect answer for this one:

>Yes, Adnan is in pkg-lxc and technically the team is interested
>(given it falls into the same software stack) to have the whole stack
available in Debian.

...

>What's the state of the Ubuntu package? Could that make a good starting
point? How
>much hacking before that would be suitable for an experimental upload at
least?

Basically if we resolved the issue with missing golang-* dependencies, we
could probably have it uploaded within same day.

@Anthony and @Evgeni,

>> I took a quick look at the package source obtained via:
>>
>>     dget -u http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/l/lxd/lxd_2.2-
0ubuntu1.dsc
>>...
>> So, I guess the first step would be to package
>> golang-gopkg-flosch-pongo2.v3, golang-gopkg-inconshreveable-log15.v2,
>> golang-gopkg-lxc-go-lxc.v2 and golang-petname, or simply grab these
>> existing Ubuntu packages, make a few minor changes to debian/control
>> and debian/changelog, file ITPs to the Debian BTS, and finally upload
>> them to Debian.
>>
>> I do not see too many hurdles after that, at least I hope not.  ;-)
>
>IIRC that's similar to what Adnan told me the last time we talked about
LXD.

Yep, this is our only and main obstacle.

>> Also, should the Debian lxd be team-maintained by the pkg-lxc team or
>> the pkg-go team?  What do you think?
>
>Whatever works? :-)
>Stack-wise it's more pkg-lxc, language-wise pkg-go...
>I'd guess it will need coordination to both, LXC and other Go uploads at
times too.

I love this suggestion. If we could make this cooridnation happen, and both
teams do their part of the job that would be the perfect fusion.

I admit and acknowledge your frustration about this ITP being here for this
long. I think I explained why I stopped where I stopped, but I also admit
that I could've been more update to date with my communication.

If anyone wants to "hijack" this ITP from me, be my guest. Regardless, I
would still like to do the work that I claimed the responsibility for, and
get LXD into Debian.

At this point, I think we just need to align the efforts between pkg-go and
pkg-lxc teams, and we'll see LXD in Debian in no time.

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #85 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Michael Hudson-Doyle <michael.hudson@canonical.com>

To: Anthony Fok <foka@debian.org>

Cc: 768073@bugs.debian.org, Debian Go Packaging Team <pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>, pkg-lxc-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org, adnan@hodzic.org, zigo@debian.org, Stéphane Graber <stgraber@ubuntu.com>, Michael Hudson-Doyle <michael.hudson@ubuntu.com>

Subject: Re: Bug#768073: ITP: lxd - The Linux Container Daemon - LXC team take over ITP?

Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 11:40:06 +1300

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On 24 September 2016 at 05:25, Anthony Fok <foka@debian.org> wrote:

> Hello all!
>
> (with added Cc to the Debian Go Team as well as
>
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 15:52:15 +0100 Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org>
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I think that an ITP that has been inactive this long could be taken over
> by
> > another interested party without it being a hijack, all things
> considered.
> > (I think some QA script might move it to RFP soon anyway).
> >
> > Adnan, how's it going?
> >
> > There's a pkg-lxc team already. Since this package is/will be very
> inter-related to
> > LXC, perhaps it should be developed in that team? Team CCed. Are they
> interested?
> > Are you in pkg-lxc already?
> >
> > What's the state of the Ubuntu package? Could that make a good starting
> point? How
> > much hacking before that would be suitable for an experimental upload at
> least?
>
> I took a quick look at the package source obtained via:
>
>     dget -u http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/l/lxd/lxd_2.
> 2-0ubuntu1.dsc
>
> This Ubuntu package is being maintained as an official Ubuntu package
> by Canonical's Stéphane Graber, *the* LXC and LXD project leader
> himself!
> As such, the package has received much love, very professionally
> packaged and very mature.
>
>     E: Unable to locate package golang-any-shared-dev
>     E: Unable to locate package golang-gopkg-flosch-pongo2.v3-dev
>     E: Unable to locate package golang-gopkg-inconshreveable-log15.v2-dev
>     E: Unable to locate package golang-gopkg-lxc-go-lxc.v2-dev
>     E: Unable to locate package golang-petname-dev
>
> golang-any-shared-dev can be ignored for now: it can simply be
> replaced by "golang-any" or similar in Debian.
> But wait, Ubuntu's Go actually has shared library support!?  What!?
> How?  Wow!  Amazing stuff!  Definitely news to me.
> See https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/juju-core/+bug/1508122
> and the patch by Michael Hudson-Doyle.  Okay, Cc'ing Michael too.  :-)
>

Heh, yep, finally! I'd like this stuff to land in Debian too but let's see
how it goes in Ubuntu for a while first. Probably something for after
stretch.

Cheers,
mwh

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #90 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org>

To: Adnan Hodzic <adnan@hodzic.org>

Cc: 768073@bugs.debian.org, pkg-lxc-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org, zigo@debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#768073: LXC team take over ITP?

Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 10:29:03 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi folks, thanks for the useful replies!

I've sent requests to join pkg-lxc and pkg-go, and set up a scratch/todo page
on wiki.d.o at https://wiki.debian.org/LXD that we could use to coordinate work
needed.

Now to take a look at those Go packages...

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #95 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org>

To: Adnan Hodzic <adnan@hodzic.org>

Cc: 768073@bugs.debian.org, pkg-lxc-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org, zigo@debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#768073: LXC team take over ITP?

Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 17:13:29 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 12:35:24AM +0200, Adnan Hodzic wrote:
> Awhile back I started packaging process. I basically re-packaged the LXD
> Ubuntu package. As Evgeni mentioned it "is what we did with the other LXC
> components and that worked out pretty well so far."

Do you have that lying around, and if so is it worth us pushing it to a git
repo for pkg-lxc?

> At this point, I think we just need to align the efforts between pkg-go and
> pkg-lxc teams, and we'll see LXD in Debian in no time.

I've just joined both teams and opened an ITP for golang-petname. I've got a
package prepared pending a few questions on the pkg-go list, I should get it
into NEW Tomorrow. Then perhaps I can start on the others next week.


Thanks,

-- 
Jonathan Dowland

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #100 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Adnan Hodzic <adnan@hodzic.org>

To: Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org>

Cc: 768073@bugs.debian.org, pkg-lxc-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org, zigo@debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#768073: LXC team take over ITP?

Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 19:49:59 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Jonathan,

>> Awhile back I started packaging process. I basically re-packaged the LXD
>> Ubuntu package. As Evgeni mentioned it "is what we did with the other LXC
>> components and that worked out pretty well so far."
>
>Do you have that lying around, and if so is it worth us pushing it to a git
>repo for pkg-lxc?

I think it is, as once golang dependencies are satisfied, we can push it
into Debian.

Let me look in what state I left it in, also I want to update it to the
latest lxd version and I'll push into pkg-lxc git repo. If there are no
objections?

I'll do this this weekend.

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 6:13 PM, Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 12:35:24AM +0200, Adnan Hodzic wrote:
> > Awhile back I started packaging process. I basically re-packaged the LXD
> > Ubuntu package. As Evgeni mentioned it "is what we did with the other LXC
> > components and that worked out pretty well so far."
>
> Do you have that lying around, and if so is it worth us pushing it to a git
> repo for pkg-lxc?
>
> > At this point, I think we just need to align the efforts between pkg-go
> and
> > pkg-lxc teams, and we'll see LXD in Debian in no time.
>
> I've just joined both teams and opened an ITP for golang-petname. I've got
> a
> package prepared pending a few questions on the pkg-go list, I should get
> it
> into NEW Tomorrow. Then perhaps I can start on the others next week.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Jonathan Dowland
>



-- 
Adnan

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #105 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Adnan Hodzic <adnan@hodzic.org>

To: Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org>

Cc: 768073@bugs.debian.org, pkg-lxc-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org, zigo@debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#768073: LXC team take over ITP?

Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 20:17:09 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Jonathan and everybody else,

Since I couldn't find my original LXD package source, I started from
scratch.

I created new Git repo (pkg-lxc/lxd.git) and pushed initial Debian package
of LXD 2.4.1 (Yakkety release). Git repo is available on Alioth:
https://anonscm.debian.org/git/pkg-lxc/lxd.git

Building the package will fail due to missing golang-* deps which ATM are
missing in Debian. I can't remember if the original list of missing
dependencies was this long, but this is what we we're currently dealing
with:

---

Unmet build dependencies: golang-any-shared-dev golang-go.crypto-dev
golang-context-dev golang-github-gorilla-mux-dev
golang-github-gosexy-gettext-dev golang-github-mattn-go-colorable-dev
golang-github-mattn-go-sqlite3-dev golang-github-olekukonko-tablewriter-dev
golang-github-pborman-uuid-dev golang-gocapability-dev
golang-gopkg-flosch-pongo2.v3-dev golang-gopkg-inconshreveable-log15.v2-dev
golang-gopkg-lxc-go-lxc.v2-dev golang-gopkg-tomb.v2-dev golang-petname-dev
golang-yaml.v2-dev golang-websocket-dev

---

Has pkg-go team been notified of this problem? And are they willing to
package these for Debian?

Let me know if you have any additional questions and/or comments.

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 7:49 PM, Adnan Hodzic <adnan@hodzic.org> wrote:

> Jonathan,
>
> >> Awhile back I started packaging process. I basically re-packaged the LXD
> >> Ubuntu package. As Evgeni mentioned it "is what we did with the other
> LXC
> >> components and that worked out pretty well so far."
> >
> >Do you have that lying around, and if so is it worth us pushing it to a
> git
> >repo for pkg-lxc?
>
> I think it is, as once golang dependencies are satisfied, we can push it
> into Debian.
>
> Let me look in what state I left it in, also I want to update it to the
> latest lxd version and I'll push into pkg-lxc git repo. If there are no
> objections?
>
> I'll do this this weekend.
>
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 6:13 PM, Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 12:35:24AM +0200, Adnan Hodzic wrote:
>> > Awhile back I started packaging process. I basically re-packaged the LXD
>> > Ubuntu package. As Evgeni mentioned it "is what we did with the other
>> LXC
>> > components and that worked out pretty well so far."
>>
>> Do you have that lying around, and if so is it worth us pushing it to a
>> git
>> repo for pkg-lxc?
>>
>> > At this point, I think we just need to align the efforts between pkg-go
>> and
>> > pkg-lxc teams, and we'll see LXD in Debian in no time.
>>
>> I've just joined both teams and opened an ITP for golang-petname. I've
>> got a
>> package prepared pending a few questions on the pkg-go list, I should get
>> it
>> into NEW Tomorrow. Then perhaps I can start on the others next week.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> --
>> Jonathan Dowland
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Adnan
>



-- 
Adnan

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #110 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org>

To: Adnan Hodzic <adnan@hodzic.org>

Cc: 768073@bugs.debian.org, pkg-lxc-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org, zigo@debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#768073: LXC team take over ITP?

Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 22:37:03 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 08:17:09PM +0200, Adnan Hodzic wrote:
> Jonathan and everybody else,
> 
> Since I couldn't find my original LXD package source, I started from
> scratch.
> 
> I created new Git repo (pkg-lxc/lxd.git) and pushed initial Debian package
> of LXD 2.4.1 (Yakkety release). Git repo is available on Alioth:
> https://anonscm.debian.org/git/pkg-lxc/lxd.git

Great, thanks!

> Building the package will fail due to missing golang-* deps which ATM are
> missing in Debian. I can't remember if the original list of missing
> dependencies was this long, but this is what we we're currently dealing
> with:

I've updated the list at https://wiki.debian.org/LXD accordingly.
 
> Has pkg-go team been notified of this problem? And are they willing to
> package these for Debian?

I have joined pkg-go and tackled one of the dependencies (with a second
incoming) but I hadn't thought to msg the team with this list, I will do
that too.

Thanks!

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #115 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Adnan Hodzic <adnan@hodzic.org>

To: Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org>

Cc: 768073@bugs.debian.org, pkg-lxc-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org, zigo@debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#768073: LXC team take over ITP?

Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 07:14:06 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Awesome!

Looking forward to any updates you may have in regards to golang-deps.

On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 08:17:09PM +0200, Adnan Hodzic wrote:
> > Jonathan and everybody else,
> >
> > Since I couldn't find my original LXD package source, I started from
> > scratch.
> >
> > I created new Git repo (pkg-lxc/lxd.git) and pushed initial Debian
> package
> > of LXD 2.4.1 (Yakkety release). Git repo is available on Alioth:
> > https://anonscm.debian.org/git/pkg-lxc/lxd.git
>
> Great, thanks!
>
> > Building the package will fail due to missing golang-* deps which ATM are
> > missing in Debian. I can't remember if the original list of missing
> > dependencies was this long, but this is what we we're currently dealing
> > with:
>
> I've updated the list at https://wiki.debian.org/LXD accordingly.
>
> > Has pkg-go team been notified of this problem? And are they willing to
> > package these for Debian?
>
> I have joined pkg-go and tackled one of the dependencies (with a second
> incoming) but I hadn't thought to msg the team with this list, I will do
> that too.
>
> Thanks!
>



-- 
Adnan

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #120 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org>

To: Debian Go Packaging Team <pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>

Cc: Adnan Hodzic <adnan@hodzic.org>, 768073@bugs.debian.org, zigo@debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#768073: LXC team take over ITP?

Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 10:59:13 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi Team,

Just a quick mail to say hello, I recently joined because I am interested
in packaging (at least) build dependencies for LXD, which is Canonical's
container hypervisor platform.

The specific go dependencies that we need to package are:

* golang-gopkg-flosch-pongo2.v3-dev
* golang-gopkg-inconshreveable-log15.v2-dev
* golang-gopkg-lxc-go-lxc.v2-dev
* golang-any-shared-dev
* golang-go.crypto-dev
* golang-context-dev
* golang-github-gorilla-mux-dev
* golang-github-gosexy-gettext-dev
* golang-github-mattn-go-colorable-dev
* golang-github-mattn-go-sqlite3-dev
* golang-github-olekukonko-tablewriter-dev
* golang-github-pborman-uuid-dev
* golang-gocapability-dev
* golang-gopkg-tomb.v2-dev
* golang-yaml.v2-dev
* golang-websocket-dev

I'm looking at flosch-pongo2 right now, but I thought I'd post the list to this
mailing list just in case anyone else was interested in getting involved!

I've set up this wiki.d.o page to track progress on the above:
https://wiki.debian.org/LXD


Thanks,

-- 
Jonathan Dowland

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #125 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Martín Ferrari <tincho@tincho.org>

To: Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org>, Debian Go Packaging Team <pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>

Cc: zigo@debian.org, Adnan Hodzic <adnan@hodzic.org>, 768073@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: [pkg-go] Bug#768073: LXC team take over ITP?

Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 14:11:13 +0200

Hi Jon,

On 13/10/16 11:59, Jonathan Dowland wrote:

> Just a quick mail to say hello, I recently joined because I am interested

Welcomed! :)

> in packaging (at least) build dependencies for LXD, which is Canonical's
> container hypervisor platform.
> 
> The specific go dependencies that we need to package are:

A few of these dependencies are already in the archive, not all have the
standard naming yet, but I think about half of those are already packaged.

-- 
Martín Ferrari (Tincho)

Message #130 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Christopher Bachner <b.christopher.92@gmail.com>

To: 768073@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: [pkg-go] Bug#768073: LXC team take over ITP?

Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 08:22:31 -0700

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hello,

I have been using LXD for many months now, so I am patiently waiting for
the day when I will be able to use it on Debian! Thanks for all the work
y'all.

I was wondering what the plan is regarding the apparmor compatibility? I
think that LXD needs apparmor and as far as I know, apparmor is a kernel
thing and it needs to be baked into the kernel. Would there be an
alternative kernel for LXD in the repos then or how will this work?

Thanks!

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #135 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org>

To: Martín Ferrari <tincho@tincho.org>

Cc: Debian Go Packaging Team <pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>, zigo@debian.org, Adnan Hodzic <adnan@hodzic.org>, 768073@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: [pkg-go] Bug#768073: LXC team take over ITP?

Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 11:34:00 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 02:11:13PM +0200, Martín Ferrari wrote:
> A few of these dependencies are already in the archive, not all have the
> standard naming yet, but I think about half of those are already packaged.

Thanks! I've just gone through to re-check them, renamed a few to the canonical
names for the relevant dev packages, leaving just three missing:

 lxd-build-deps : Depends: golang-gopkg-flosch-pongo2.v3-dev but it is not installable
                  Depends: golang-gopkg-inconshreveable-log15.v2-dev but it is not installable
                  Depends: golang-gopkg-lxc-go-lxc.v2-dev but it is not installable

(I've pushed changes to debian/control just now)

I have a flosch package somewhere that I started last week, I'll try to dig
it out.

-- 
Jonathan Dowland

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #140 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Clément Hermann <nodens@nodens.org>

To: Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org>, 768073@bugs.debian.org, Martín Ferrari <tincho@tincho.org>

Cc: Debian Go Packaging Team <pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>, zigo@debian.org, Adnan Hodzic <adnan@hodzic.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#768073: [pkg-go] Bug#768073: LXC team take over ITP?

Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 13:33:53 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Le 14/10/2016 à 12:34, Jonathan Dowland a écrit :
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 02:11:13PM +0200, Martín Ferrari wrote:
>> A few of these dependencies are already in the archive, not all have the
>> standard naming yet, but I think about half of those are already packaged.
> 
> Thanks! I've just gone through to re-check them, renamed a few to the canonical
> names for the relevant dev packages, leaving just three missing:
> 
>  lxd-build-deps : Depends: golang-gopkg-flosch-pongo2.v3-dev but it is not installable
>                   Depends: golang-gopkg-inconshreveable-log15.v2-dev but it is not installable

From what I looked, this is a fork of
golang-github-tendermint-log15-dev, which is the archive. There seem to
be very few changes, so it might just work:
https://github.com/inconshreveable/log15/compare/master...tendermint:master

Not sure what the pkg-go team policy is on this kind of very similar
packages, but I'm sure people actually in the team can answer. :)

Cheers and thanks for working on this !

-- 
nodens

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #145 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Clément Hermann <nodens@nodens.org>

To: Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org>, 768073@bugs.debian.org, Martín Ferrari <tincho@tincho.org>

Cc: Debian Go Packaging Team <pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>, zigo@debian.org, Adnan Hodzic <adnan@hodzic.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#768073: [pkg-go] Bug#768073: LXC team take over ITP?

Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 00:02:32 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Le 14 octobre 2016 13:33:53 GMT+02:00, "Clément Hermann" <nodens@nodens.org> a écrit :
>Le 14/10/2016 à 12:34, Jonathan Dowland a écrit :
>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 02:11:13PM +0200, Martín Ferrari wrote:
>>> A few of these dependencies are already in the archive, not all have
>the
>>> standard naming yet, but I think about half of those are already
>packaged.
>> 
>> Thanks! I've just gone through to re-check them, renamed a few to the
>canonical
>> names for the relevant dev packages, leaving just three missing:
>> 
>>  lxd-build-deps : Depends: golang-gopkg-flosch-pongo2.v3-dev but it
>is not installable
>>                   Depends: golang-gopkg-inconshreveable-log15.v2-dev
>but it is not installable
>
>From what I looked, this is a fork of
>golang-github-tendermint-log15-dev, which is the archive. There seem to
>be very few changes, so it might just work:
>https://github.com/inconshreveable/log15/compare/master...tendermint:master
>
>Not sure what the pkg-go team policy is on this kind of very similar
>packages, but I'm sure people actually in the team can answer. :)
>
>Cheers and thanks for working on this !
>
>-- 
>nodens

[Re-sent after subscribing to the pkg-go-maintainers list to comply with antispam measures]
-- 
Envoyé de mon téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté.

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #150 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Kyle Janse van Rensburg <kylejvrsa@gmail.com>

To: 768073@bugs.debian.org

Subject: LXD on Debian

Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 13:54:27 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi,

Will be still see LXD on debian?

I will be happy to help test as much as I can to help this get in before
Stretch release, as I use LXC for all my container needs on debian
jessie(LXC 1.0) and debian stretch(LXC 2.0) and would be Super Awesome to
get LXD on stretch!!

kind regards,

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #155 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org>

To: Clément Hermann <nodens@nodens.org>

Cc: 768073@bugs.debian.org, Martín Ferrari <tincho@tincho.org>, Debian Go Packaging Team <pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>, zigo@debian.org, Adnan Hodzic <adnan@hodzic.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#768073: [pkg-go] Bug#768073: LXC team take over ITP?

Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 16:52:34 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi all,

I was pinged about this today which reminded me to post an update to the bug.

I'm unlikely to have enough time to finish packaging the rest of the dependencies
before the freeze deadline.

But the good news is we're very close anyway!

Zhenech has  golang-…-lxc.v2  imported to pkg-lxc but the tests are failing.

Clément identified that some of the other deps might already be packaged:

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 01:33:53PM +0200, Clément Hermann wrote:
> >                   Depends: golang-gopkg-inconshreveable-log15.v2-dev but it is not installable
> 
> From what I looked, this is a fork of
> golang-github-tendermint-log15-dev, which is the archive. There seem to
> be very few changes, so it might just work:
> https://github.com/inconshreveable/log15/compare/master...tendermint:master

So I'd encourage anyone else interested to jump in *now* to get the last 10% or
so done if possible!

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #160 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org>

To: 768073@bugs.debian.org, Debian Go Packaging Team <pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#768073: [pkg-go] Bug#768073: LXC team take over ITP?

Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 16:08:18 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi folks,

We didn't manage to get LXD into the archive in time for the freeze.

We packaged the following specifically as LXD dependencies which did go in:

 * https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/golang-gopkg-flosch-pongo2.v3
 * https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/golang-petname
 (possibly others, hit-list was at https://wiki.debian.org/LXD)

IMHO, and at least for the ones I did, I think we should file RC bugs to
prevent these packages from going into stretch. They should stay in the
archive/sid, for continued work on LXD, but I don't think that they are
valuable on their own in the next release: it's just stuff that people
might try to use that isn't being looked after properly (since the reason
for them being there does not exist), taking up archive space and apt
metadata space, etc.

Thoughts?

-- 
Jonathan Dowland

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #167 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Evgeni Golov <evgeni@debian.org>

To: Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org>, 768073@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Debian Go Packaging Team <pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>, pkg-lxc-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#768073: [pkg-go] Bug#768073: LXC team take over ITP?

Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 14:00:33 +0100

Hi,

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 04:08:18PM +0000, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> We packaged the following specifically as LXD dependencies which did go in:
> 
>  * https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/golang-gopkg-flosch-pongo2.v3
>  * https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/golang-petname
>  (possibly others, hit-list was at https://wiki.debian.org/LXD)

Thanks for that!

> IMHO, and at least for the ones I did, I think we should file RC bugs to
> prevent these packages from going into stretch. They should stay in the
> archive/sid, for continued work on LXD, but I don't think that they are
> valuable on their own in the next release: it's just stuff that people
> might try to use that isn't being looked after properly (since the reason
> for them being there does not exist), taking up archive space and apt
> metadata space, etc.

Makes sense, yeah.

I will try to have a look at LXD during the credativ BSP this weekend,
noone says BSPs are limited to non-wnpp bugs :)

Cheers
Evgeni

Message #172 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Marc Rüttler" <marc.ruettler@gmx.de>

To: 768073@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Eta for lxd in Debian

Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 17:08:37 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/html, inline)]

Message #177 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Harald Dunkel <harald.dunkel@aixigo.de>

To: 768073@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: ITP: lxd -- The Linux Container Daemon

Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 15:35:04 +0200

Hi folks,

is this ITP still alive?


Regards
Harri

Message #182 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Holger Schröder <holgihsp@gmail.com>

To: 768073@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: ITP: lxd -- The Linux Container Daemon

Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 10:25:22 +0200

Hi folks,

I hope this is still alive. for a long time no response.


Greetings

        Holger...

Message #187 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jean-Michel Pouré <jm@poure.com>

To: 768073@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Collaboration

Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2017 08:54:45 +0200

Hello,

We all need LXD as it is way more faster than Docker. I have been using
LXC for quite a long time and it is the ultimate virtualization tool.
How can we collaborate on LXD/LXC? LXD is the future. Could you create 
a repository to receive patches on the project? We probably need to
discuss integration with apparmor (but I read that apparmor rules were
managed by LXD).

Kind regards,
French Fries

Message #192 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jonathan Carter <jcc@debian.org>

To: 768073@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Please be sure to use LTS version

Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 12:21:33 -0400

During DebConf today, LXC upstream Stephane Graber gave a talk and demo
on LXD, and urged Debian maintainers to use the LXD LTS release for
packaging in Debian. Please be sure to use this for tracking upstream.

Message #199 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Clément Hermann <clement.hermann@virtua.ch>

To: 768073@bugs.debian.org, Evgeni Golov <evgeni@debian.org>

Cc: pkg-lxc-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org, Debian Go Packaging Team <pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#768073: LXC team take over ITP?

Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 13:36:47 +0200

Hi !

On Wed, 15 Mar 2017 14:00:33 +0100 Evgeni Golov <evgeni@debian.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 04:08:18PM +0000, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> > We packaged the following specifically as LXD dependencies which did
go in:
> >
> > * https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/golang-gopkg-flosch-pongo2.v3
> > * https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/golang-petname
> > (possibly others, hit-list was at https://wiki.debian.org/LXD)
>
> Thanks for that!
>
Thanks indeed :)

I see there are only a couple dependancies left on the wiki page. Do you
need help ?
I'm not a Go expert, but I would really like to see LXD in Debian.
(also, not a DM/DD - Yet! )

I started looking at golang-gopkg-inconshreveable-log15.v2, the
packaging should be straightforward enough apparently. I'm willing to do
it if it helps.

Cheers,

-- 

Clément Hermann
Senior Network System Engineer

VIRTUA.CH
T +41 21 544 28 00

FACEBOOK // http://l.virtua.ch/facebook
TWITTER  // http://l.virtua.ch/twitter
LINKEDIN // http://l.virtua.ch/linkedin

Message #204 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Clément Hermann <nodens@nodens.org>

To: 768073@bugs.debian.org, Evgeni Golov <evgeni@debian.org>

Cc: pkg-lxc-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org, Debian Go Packaging Team <pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>

Subject: Re: [pkg-lxc-devel] Bug#768073: LXC team take over ITP?

Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 13:44:52 +0200

Ooops. Sent using my work address, please use this one instead (but I'm
subscribed on both list so don't CC me if you reply on-list). Sorry for
the noise!

On 13/10/2017 13:36, Clément Hermann wrote:
> Hi !
> 
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2017 14:00:33 +0100 Evgeni Golov <evgeni@debian.org> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 04:08:18PM +0000, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>>> We packaged the following specifically as LXD dependencies which did
> go in:
>>>
>>> * https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/golang-gopkg-flosch-pongo2.v3
>>> * https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/golang-petname
>>> (possibly others, hit-list was at https://wiki.debian.org/LXD)
>>
>> Thanks for that!
>>
> Thanks indeed :)
> 
> I see there are only a couple dependancies left on the wiki page. Do you
> need help ?
> I'm not a Go expert, but I would really like to see LXD in Debian.
> (also, not a DM/DD - Yet! )
> 
> I started looking at golang-gopkg-inconshreveable-log15.v2, the
> packaging should be straightforward enough apparently. I'm willing to do
> it if it helps.
> 
> Cheers,
> 

Message #209 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Clément Hermann <nodens@nodens.org>

To: 768073@bugs.debian.org, Evgeni Golov <evgeni@debian.org>

Cc: pkg-lxc-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org, Debian Go Packaging Team <pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#768073: LXC team take over ITP?

Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 21:40:06 +0100

Hi !

Time for a status update on this one, hopefully !

On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 13:36:47 +0200 Clément Hermann
<clement.hermann@virtua.ch> wrote:

>
> I see there are only a couple dependancies left on the wiki page. Do you
> need help ?
> I'm not a Go expert, but I would really like to see LXD in Debian.
> (also, not a DM/DD - Yet! )
>
> I started looking at golang-gopkg-inconshreveable-log15.v2, the
> packaging should be straightforward enough apparently. I'm willing to do
> it if it helps.

This last one is not needed anymore.

So, I did some work on golang-gopkg-flosch-pongo2
<https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-go/packages/golang-gopkg-flosch-pongo2.git/>
(#839748), since I had no answer.
It should be fit for release but I would need someone (from the pkg-go
team) to review and upload.

I also started working on golang-gopkg-lxc-go-lxc.v2-dev (ITP: #883488).

That's the last dependancy for LXD.

So I started looking packaging LXD stable-2.0 as well, and asked to join
the pkg-lxc team (pending approval).

I think the best approach would be to not start from the ubuntu package,
but instead, start from scratch, with dh-make-golang, so that we have
proper initial packaging, and then integrate ubuntu work where needed.


Cheers,

-- 
nodens

Message #214 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Clément Hermann <nodens@nodens.org>

To: 768073@bugs.debian.org, Evgeni Golov <evgeni@debian.org>

Cc: pkg-lxc-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org, Debian Go Packaging Team <pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>

Subject: Re: [pkg-lxc-devel] Bug#768073: LXC team take over ITP?

Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 21:39:42 +0100

Hi,

Time for a new status update, I guess.


On 04/12/2017 21:40, Clément Hermann wrote:
> So, I did some work on golang-gopkg-flosch-pongo2
> <https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-go/packages/golang-gopkg-flosch-pongo2.git/>
> (#839748), since I had no answer.
> It should be fit for release but I would need someone (from the pkg-go
> team) to review and upload.
> 

It's been completely reworked, hopefully it can be reviewed and uploaded
soon.

> I also started working on golang-gopkg-lxc-go-lxc.v2-dev (ITP: #883488).
> 
> That's the last dependancy for LXD.
> 

And it's waiting for review and upload as well, in the pkg-go repository.

> So I started looking packaging LXD stable-2.0 as well, and asked to join
> the pkg-lxc team (pending approval).

Unfortunately I had no response so far... Ping ? My Alioth username is
nodens-guest.

> I think the best approach would be to not start from the ubuntu package,
> but instead, start from scratch, with dh-make-golang, so that we have
> proper initial packaging, and then integrate ubuntu work where needed.

That's what I started doing (only locally for now, since I'm not in the
team).

I decided to follow the new pkg-go workflow, for consistency with other
Go packages:

https://pkg-go.alioth.debian.org/workflow-changes.html

Of course, if people in the LXC team disagree, we can use a different one.


Cheers,

-- 
nodens

Message #219 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Clément Hermann <nodens@nodens.org>

To: 768073@bugs.debian.org, Evgeni Golov <evgeni@debian.org>

Cc: pkg-lxc-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org, Debian Go Packaging Team <pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>

Subject: Re: [pkg-lxc-devel] LXD packaging

Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 17:59:42 +0100

On 17/12/2017 21:39, Clément Hermann wrote:

> On 04/12/2017 21:40, Clément Hermann wrote:
>> So, I did some work on golang-gopkg-flosch-pongo2
>> <https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-go/packages/golang-gopkg-flosch-pongo2.git/>
>> (#839748), since I had no answer.
>> It should be fit for release but I would need someone (from the pkg-go
>> team) to review and upload.
>>
> 
> It's been completely reworked, hopefully it can be reviewed and uploaded
> soon.

It's in NEW right now.

>> I also started working on golang-gopkg-lxc-go-lxc.v2-dev (ITP: #883488).
>>
>> That's the last dependancy for LXD.
>>
> 
> And it's waiting for review and upload as well, in the pkg-go repository.
> 

I'm almost done, hopefully will have something ready for review this
weekend :)


>> So I started looking packaging LXD stable-2.0 as well, and asked to join
>> the pkg-lxc team (pending approval).
> 
> Unfortunately I had no response so far... Ping ? My Alioth username is
> nodens-guest.
> 

(Friendly) ping ?


Cheers,

\

Message #224 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Evgeni Golov <evgeni@debian.org>

To: Clément Hermann <nodens@nodens.org>, 768073@bugs.debian.org

Cc: pkg-lxc-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org, Debian Go Packaging Team <pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>

Subject: Re: [pkg-lxc-devel] Bug#768073: LXD packaging

Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 10:31:09 +0100

Hi,

On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 05:59:42PM +0100, Clément Hermann wrote:
> On 17/12/2017 21:39, Clément Hermann wrote:
> 
> > On 04/12/2017 21:40, Clément Hermann wrote:
> >> So, I did some work on golang-gopkg-flosch-pongo2
> >> <https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-go/packages/golang-gopkg-flosch-pongo2.git/>
> >> (#839748), since I had no answer.
> >> It should be fit for release but I would need someone (from the pkg-go
> >> team) to review and upload.
> >>
> > 
> > It's been completely reworked, hopefully it can be reviewed and uploaded
> > soon.
> 
> It's in NEW right now.

Cool!

> 
> >> I also started working on golang-gopkg-lxc-go-lxc.v2-dev (ITP: #883488).
> >>
> >> That's the last dependancy for LXD.
> >>
> > 
> > And it's waiting for review and upload as well, in the pkg-go repository.
> > 
> 
> I'm almost done, hopefully will have something ready for review this
> weekend :)

Awesome! I tried doing this in [1], but the test suite didn't like me :(

> >> So I started looking packaging LXD stable-2.0 as well, and asked to join
> >> the pkg-lxc team (pending approval).
> > 
> > Unfortunately I had no response so far... Ping ? My Alioth username is
> > nodens-guest.
> > 
> 
> (Friendly) ping ?

Sorry, busy with life atm, but now Alioth just said "Member Added
Successfully" :))

Welcome!

Evgeni

[1] https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-lxc/golang-gopkg-lxc-go-lxc.v2.git/

Message #229 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Clément Hermann <nodens@nodens.org>

To: Evgeni Golov <evgeni@debian.org>, 768073@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: [pkg-lxc-devel] Bug#768073: Bug#768073: LXD packaging

Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 21:48:38 +0100

On 21/12/2017 10:31, Evgeni Golov wrote:
>>>> I also started working on golang-gopkg-lxc-go-lxc.v2-dev (ITP: #883488).
>>>>
>>>> That's the last dependancy for LXD.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And it's waiting for review and upload as well, in the pkg-go repository.
>>>
>>
>> I'm almost done, hopefully will have something ready for review this
>> weekend :)
> 
> Awesome! I tried doing this in [1], but the test suite didn't like me :(

yes, it's basically impossible to run the tests in the build system: the
unprivileged ones need a working LXC setup with cgroups (I actually have
trouble with them with my user out of a chroot), and the privileged one
aren't skipped because fakeroot...

I discussed this a bit on #pkg-go and I decided to loose the tests for
the initial packaging, and plan to setup the tests in autopkgtest instead.

There is still some work to be done, I hope I'll find time to finish
this weekend.

>>>> So I started looking packaging LXD stable-2.0 as well, and asked to join
>>>> the pkg-lxc team (pending approval).
>>>
>>> Unfortunately I had no response so far... Ping ? My Alioth username is
>>> nodens-guest.
>>>
>>
>> (Friendly) ping ?
> 
> Sorry, busy with life atm, but now Alioth just said "Member Added
> Successfully" :))
> 
> Welcome!

Thanks :)


-- 
nodens

Message #234 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Clément Hermann <nodens@nodens.org>

To: Evgeni Golov <evgeni@debian.org>, 768073@bugs.debian.org

Cc: pkg-lxc-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org, Debian Go Packaging Team <pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>

Subject: Re: [pkg-lxc-devel] Bug#768073: LXD packaging (and lxc-go plus a little bit of salsa)

Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2018 16:52:28 +0100

Hi,


I've resumed active work on LXD, the last dependency
(golang-gopkg-lxc-go-lxc.v2 - #883488) is almost done (pending review
and upload).

Regarding lxc-go, I suggest we archive the previous attemps, since it
will live in pkg-go repository (using gitlab Archive feature on Salsa).
Same for the lxd ubuntu package that has been imported: I think it will
be much easier to create a new package from scratch using
dh-make-golang. Of course, I intent to cherry-pick bits of Ubuntu
packaging where it makes sense.

Speaking of Salsa, can someone grant me access to lxc-team ?

on LXD packaging per se, the only difference with other go packages will
probably be that pkg-go team switched to a workflow without pristine-tar
(see https://pkg-go.alioth.debian.org/workflow-changes.html if you're
interested). And, of course, that the repo is in lxc-team namespace.


Is there anything regarding lxc-team packaging style/workflow I should
be aware of? From what I saw, the workflow seems to be using gbp with
pristine star branch, UNRELEASED target distribution until the package
is ready to upload, so very similar to what I'm used to in pkg-perl.
Please correct me if I'm wrong! :)


Cheers.

-- 
nodens

Message #239 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Clément Hermann <nodens@nodens.org>

To: Evgeni Golov <evgeni@debian.org>, 768073@bugs.debian.org

Cc: pkg-lxc-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org

Subject: Re: [pkg-lxc-devel] Bug#768073: LXD packaging (and lxc-go plus a little bit of salsa)

Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2018 17:03:24 +0100

On 03/02/2018 16:52, Clément Hermann wrote:
> Hi,
> Is there anything regarding lxc-team packaging style/workflow I should
> be aware of? From what I saw, the workflow seems to be using gbp with
> pristine star branch, UNRELEASED target distribution until the package
> is ready to upload, so very similar to what I'm used to in pkg-perl.
> Please correct me if I'm wrong! :)

Except pristine star-> pristine-tar, obviously, I had a brain
autocorrect bug. ;)


Cheers,

-- 
nodens

Message #244 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Leon Klingele <info@leonklingele.de>

To: 768073@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: ITP: lxd - The Linux Container Daemon

Date: Sat, 19 May 2018 22:54:42 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Seems like the LXD snap is the way to go.
From now on, non-security related updates to LXD on Ubuntu will no
longer be distributed through debs.

"""
LXD 3.1 will only be made available as a snap package. We will not be
uploading it as a deb to Ubuntu 18.10 or through backports to previous
releases. Moving forward all feature releases of LXD will only be
available through the snap.
"""

https://discuss.linuxcontainers.org/t/lxd-3-1-has-been-released/1787

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #249 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Alexander Gerasiov <gq@cs.msu.su>

To: 768073@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: ITP: lxd - The Linux Container Daemon

Date: Sun, 27 May 2018 16:01:28 +0300

Nope, they said that _feature_ releases will be available as snap
packages, but LTS (3.0 for now, and may be other in the future) will
be supported as deb packages.

-- 
Best regards,
 Alexander Gerasiov

 Contacts:
 e-mail: gq@cs.msu.su  WWW: http://gerasiov.net  TG/Skype: gerasiov
 PGP fingerprint: 04B5 9D90 DF7C C2AB CD49  BAEA CA87 E9E8 2AAC 33F1

Message #254 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org>

To: Alexander Gerasiov <gq@cs.msu.su>, 768073@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#768073: ITP: lxd - The Linux Container Daemon

Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 11:38:02 +0100

On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 04:01:28PM +0300, Alexander Gerasiov wrote:
>Nope, they said that _feature_ releases will be available as snap
>packages, but LTS (3.0 for now, and may be other in the future) will
>be supported as deb packages.

It's moot, anyway: Debian will be packaging the source and building our
own binaries, not redistrubuting theirs.

-- 

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀

Message #259 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org>

To: Clément Hermann <nodens@nodens.org>, 768073@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#768073: [pkg-lxc-devel] Bug#768073: LXD packaging (and lxc-go plus a little bit of salsa)

Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 11:40:27 +0100

Hey folks,

I was pleased to see the last LXD dependency that we were tracking has
finally made it into Debian, so the path is likely clear for LXD itself
now (unless we need to catch up on some newer dependencies since the
analysis was done: https://wiki.debian.org/LXD)

What's the status of the LXD package itself? In the middle of this whole 
process Alioth went away and was replaced by Salsa. I found the
following Salsa project but no packaging sources:

   https://salsa.debian.org/lxc-team/lxd




Thanks & best wishes

-- 

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀

Message #264 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Clément Hermann <nodens@nodens.org>

To: Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org>, 768073@bugs.debian.org, pkg-lxc-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org

Subject: [pkg-lxc-devel] Bug#768073: LXD packaging (and lxc-go plus a little bit of salsa)

Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 13:51:35 +0200

Hi !

On 10/07/2018 12:40, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> Hey folks,

> I was pleased to see the last LXD dependency that we were tracking has
> finally made it into Debian, so the path is likely clear for LXD itself
> now (unless we need to catch up on some newer dependencies since the
> analysis was done: https://wiki.debian.org/LXD)


Actually, yes, it's a bit outdated. I'm currently working on the
dependancies needed for 3.0.1, see this edited output of dh-make-golang
estimate (some entries were false positive, due to different import path
that'll need to be patched, or an apparently useless for in the case of
go4):

github.com/lxc/lxd
    github.com/juju/persistent-cookiejar
      github.com/frankban/quicktest
      github.com/CanonicalLtd/go-sqlite3
      github.com/mpvl/subtest
    github.com/CanonicalLtd/go-grpc-sql
    github.com/CanonicalLtd/raft-http
      github.com/CanonicalLtd/raft-test
      github.com/CanonicalLtd/raft-membership
    github.com/CanonicalLtd/dqlite
          github.com/ryanfaerman/fsm
            github.com/nbio/st
        github.com/juju/gomaasapi
          github.com/juju/collections
  github.com/flosch/pongo2
  gopkg.in/CanonicalLtd/candidclient.v1
        gopkg.in/juju/names.v2


The original plan was to start with lxd 2.0, but upstream is slow to
release a new 2.0 version, apparently they're too busy on 3.x and it's a
bit in the backlog. Since there were some merge mistakes in the past
that trigger new deps which are only fixed as patches in the Ubuntu
package, it means quite a lot of hunting work.

Also I injured both my hands meanwhile, which mean I couldn't spend much
time on it... But that's better now ! So I started working on 3.0 deps -
just yesterday, actually. I plan to work on this more during Debcamp,
hopefully I'll find time to at least fill all the ITP until then and
start working on some.

Help welcome, of course, I plan to put all those under the Go-team
umbrella. Feel free to fill ITPs and start working on any of them, just
make sure you're following the Go team new workflow for consistency with
other LXD deps [1].

> What's the status of the LXD package itself? 

Barely started. I have started to sort out build/test/runtime deps and
the like - it's not possible to simply get the ones from Ubuntu package
which work differently (bundling everything in a single source,
vendoring go-lxc, etc, which is not acceptable in Debian). Of course it
still makes sense to reproduce some stuff from the Ubuntu packaging, but
it's not a straightforward "port".

 > In the middle of this whole
> process Alioth went away and was replaced by Salsa. I found the
> following Salsa project but no packaging sources:
> 
>    https://salsa.debian.org/lxc-team/lxd

This project has been created empty during the migration.

Putting lxc-team in CC, as I can't initialize this repo myself (I only
have "developper" access, and I'd need to be master or owner.

Antonio, you're owner, could you please give the lxc-team group master
access ?


Cheers,


[1] https://go-team.pages.debian.net/workflow-changes.html

-- 
nodens

Message #269 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Clément Hermann <nodens@nodens.org>

To: 768073@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: [pkg-lxc-devel] Bug#768073: LXD packaging (and lxc-go plus a little bit of salsa)

Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2018 12:23:30 +0200

On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 13:51:35 +0200 =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=c3=a9ment_Hermann?=
<nodens@nodens.org> wrote:
> On 10/07/2018 12:40, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> > Hey folks,
>
> > I was pleased to see the last LXD dependency that we were tracking has
> > finally made it into Debian, so the path is likely clear for LXD itself
> > now (unless we need to catch up on some newer dependencies since the
> > analysis was done: https://wiki.debian.org/LXD)
>
>
> Actually, yes, it's a bit outdated. I'm currently working on the
> dependancies needed for 3.0.1, see this edited output of dh-make-golang
> estimate (some entries were false positive, due to different import path
> that'll need to be patched, or an apparently useless for in the case of
> go4):

People interested, please check the up-to-date list in the Gobby doc at
gobby.debian.org/Teams/Go/lxd-dep-packaging
(or the export at
https://gobby.debian.org/export/Teams/Go/lxd-dep-packaging). It contains
comments, #ITPs, etc.

To avoid packaging useless deps, we'll probably wait until 3.0.2 for a
proper LXD package (see comments in #905068).

Thanks to people already helping, with packaging or sponsoring!

Cheers,

--
nodens

Message #274 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org>

To: Clément Hermann <nodens@nodens.org>, 768073@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#768073: [pkg-lxc-devel] Bug#768073: LXD packaging (and lxc-go plus a little bit of salsa)

Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 16:17:32 +0100

Clément Hermann wrote:
> Actually, yes, it's a bit outdated. I'm currently working on the
> dependancies needed for 3.0.1, see this edited output of dh-make-golang
> estimate (some entries were false positive, due to different import path
> that'll need to be patched, or an apparently useless for in the case of
> go4):

I updated https://wiki.debian.org/LXD with the list from your email, and
then

>People interested, please check the up-to-date list in the Gobby doc at
>gobby.debian.org/Teams/Go/lxd-dep-packaging (or the export at
>https://gobby.debian.org/export/Teams/Go/lxd-dep-packaging). It
>contains comments, #ITPs, etc.

I'd never heard of Gobby before. I've linked to it from the wiki page,
but it doesn't seem to make sense to try and track this in two places.
It's kind-of unfortunate to have introduced yet-another-collaborative
editor. I'd delete the list from the wiki page and point at the Gobby
doc except I don't know how accessible that is yet, and I don't know
if the list there is current to now, either.

https://salsa.debian.org/lxc-team/lxd doesn't exist still but I guess
it wouldn't until the dependencies were done.


-- 

Jonathan Dowland

Message #279 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Harald Dunkel <harald.dunkel@aixigo.de>

To: 768073@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: ITP: lxd -- The Linux Container Daemon

Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 12:15:47 +0100

Hi folks,

how good are chances to get LXD into Buster?


Regards
Harri

Message #286 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Clément Hermann <nodens@nodens.org>

To: Harald Dunkel <harald.dunkel@aixigo.de>, 768073@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#768073: ITP: lxd -- The Linux Container Daemon

Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 19:22:00 +0100

Hi,

First, sorry for the late reply. A mail filter caught this message
before I had the chance to read it.

On 14/12/2018 12:15, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> Hi folks,
> 
> how good are chances to get LXD into Buster?

As much as it pains me to say so, not very good at the moment, with the
soft freeze coming up in February.

The biggest issue is, starting with lxd3, Canonical decided to implement
replication in sqlite, which is fine, but since they needed it soon and
know that it would take a while for inclusion, they rely on a patched
version of sqlite.

It doesn't affect Ubuntu since Ubuntu is actually using Snap now to
distribute even the packaged version of LXD, and there having a patched
version is fine, since it's only in the snap context. However, we can't
patch sqlite this way in Debian.

you can check the ITP on golang-github-canonicalltd-dqlite [1] for more
info on this discussion. Sadly it's stalled currently (and the bandwidth
I can use to work on this packaging is quite low at the moment).


[1] - https://bugs.debian.org/905068

Cheers,

-- 
nodens

Message #291 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Harald Dunkel <harald.dunkel@aixigo.com>

To: 768073@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: ITP: lxd -- The Linux Container Daemon

Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 08:38:03 +0200

Its sad that Debian missed the train.


Regards
Harri

Message #296 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Kurt Kremitzki <kurt@kwk.systems>

To: 768073@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: ITP: lxd - The Linux Container Daemon

Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2020 13:23:37 -0500

Hello,

With the release of LXD 4.6 [1], it should now be a lot easier for it to be 
brought to Debian:

"Dqlite changes

Shortly after LXD 4.5 was released, a major change was made to upstream 
dqlite.

Rather than relying on our fork of sqlite3 which was adding some hooks used to 
intercept filesystem writes and replicating to other nodes, we are now using a 
different approach to get VFS access from a standard sqlite3.

While invisible to users, this should help packagers a fair bit by removing 
two custom dependencies of LXD, that custom sqlite3 and libco.

LXD with dqlite can now use any standard sqlite3 of version 3.25 or higher."

[1] https://discuss.linuxcontainers.org/t/lxd-4-6-has-been-released/8981

Message #301 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Clément Hermann <nodens@debian.org>

To: 768073@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#768073: ITP: lxd - The Linux Container Daemon

Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2020 22:59:17 +0200

Hi,

On 27/09/2020 20:23, Kurt Kremitzki wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> With the release of LXD 4.6 [1], it should now be a lot easier for it to be 
> brought to Debian:
> 
> "Dqlite changes
> 
> Shortly after LXD 4.5 was released, a major change was made to upstream 
> dqlite.
> 
> Rather than relying on our fork of sqlite3 which was adding some hooks used to 
> intercept filesystem writes and replicating to other nodes, we are now using a 
> different approach to get VFS access from a standard sqlite3.
> 
> While invisible to users, this should help packagers a fair bit by removing 
> two custom dependencies of LXD, that custom sqlite3 and libco.
> 
> LXD with dqlite can now use any standard sqlite3 of version 3.25 or higher."
> 
> [1] https://discuss.linuxcontainers.org/t/lxd-4-6-has-been-released/8981

That was indeed on the radar after discussions with upstream at FOSDEM
and we were in the loop. Thanks for keeping the subscribers of this bug
informed! (and sorry I didn't do it myself).

And now, dqlite is actually in Debian:
https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/dqlite (thanks Laszlo!).

I'm happy to say I can now resume working on LXD deps and lxd itself.

We might have a chance to see LXD in the next release after all! \o/

Cheers,


-- 
nodens

Message #306 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Nicola Tuveri <nic.tuv@gmail.com>

To: 768073@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#768073: ITP: lxd - The Linux Container Daemon

Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2020 11:44:25 +0200

On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 22:59:17 +0200 =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=c3=a9ment_Hermann?=
<nodens@debian.org> wrote:
>
> That was indeed on the radar after discussions with upstream at FOSDEM
> and we were in the loop. Thanks for keeping the subscribers of this bug
> informed! (and sorry I didn't do it myself).
>
> And now, dqlite is actually in Debian:
> https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/dqlite (thanks Laszlo!).
>
> I'm happy to say I can now resume working on LXD deps and lxd itself.
>
> We might have a chance to see LXD in the next release after all! \o/
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> --
> nodens
>
>

This is great news indeed!

I saw you mentioned limited availability to work on packaging LXD, can
you give some estimate of how much work you think is left in light of
the latest developments and how long it could take to have
experimental packaging?


Cheers,

Nicola

Message #311 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Piotr Iwaniuk <piwaniuk@poczta.onet.pl>

To: 768073@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: ITP: lxd - The Linux Container Daemon

Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2020 16:22:36 +0100

Hello,

For the last few weeks I have been working on a Debian package for LXD 
after switching to Debian from Fedora where the package was available. I 
was targeting the stable release (buster). I added several workarounds 
to create deb packages from upstream released Golang source code. The 
end result was able to initialize LXD and create a container.

My debian directory is available here: 
<https://github.com/piwaniuk/lxd-debian>. It is my first Debian package 
and it likely still has a lot of issues but may be it will useful.

-- 
Regards,
Piotr

Message #316 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: peylight <peylight@riseup.net>

To: 768073@bugs.debian.org

Cc: nodens@debian.org, jmtd@debian.org, jcc@debian.org, evgeni@debian.org, zigo@debian.org, foka@debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#768073: ITP: lxd - The Linux Container Daemon

Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2021 07:37:03 +0330

Hi Dear Debian Developers,
Can you check the 331th message of LXD packaging please:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=768073#311

-- 
Best Regards,
peylight

Message #321 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Clément Hermann <nodens@debian.org>

To: peylight <peylight@riseup.net>, 768073@bugs.debian.org

Cc: foka@debian.org, zigo@debian.org, jmtd@debian.org, jcc@debian.org, evgeni@debian.org

Subject: Re: [pkg-lxc-devel] Bug#768073: ITP: lxd - The Linux Container Daemon

Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 14:52:48 +0100

Hi,

On 08/01/2021 05:07, peylight wrote:
> Hi Dear Debian Developers,
> Can you check the 331th message of LXD packaging please:
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=768073#311
> 

Thanks for your interest in LXD packaging - and sorry for the late reply.

The issue with said package is that it doesn't follow Debian packaging
guidelines. We can't vendor all the deps like it's done here. Some
vendoring might be OK in very specific cases, but here we have to take
the long road.

The progress on packaging LXD deps is tracked in gobby.debian.org at
Teams/Go/lxd-deps-packaging.

An http export is here:
https://gobby.debian.org/export/Teams/Go/lxd-dep-packaging.

As you can see, there are still a lors of dependancies. I doubt we'll be
able to make this enter Debian before the soft freeze, but if enough
people want to help, that might still be possible.

Intested parties, please don't hesitate to just tag some entries in the
Gobby doc or ping me on IRC (nodens) to tell me what you're working on.

Cheers,

-- 
nodens

Message #354 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Mathias Gibbens <mathias@calenhad.com>

To: 768073@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#768073: ITP: lxd - The Linux Container Daemon

Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2022 02:38:03 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

  For those following this ITP, the end is in sight! I have whittled
down the huge list of missing dependencies to just nine packages, all
of which are ready for upload. They're just waiting on sponsorship
and/or other dependencies to make it through into unstable.

  The packaging work for LXD is also largely complete. The git repo is
available on salsa [1], and I would invite interested parties to take a
look and provide any feedback. This is the most complicated package
I've created to date, so I'm sure there's room for improvement.

Mathias

[1] -- https://salsa.debian.org/go-team/packages/lxd

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #359 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org>

To: Mathias Gibbens <mathias@calenhad.com>, 768073@bugs.debian.org

Cc: pkg-lxc-devel@alioth-lists.debian.net

Subject: Re: [pkg-lxc-devel] Bug#768073: ITP: lxd - The Linux Container Daemon

Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2022 13:03:20 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Mathias Gibbens <mathias@calenhad.com> wrote on 06/02/2022 at 03:38:03+0100:

> [[PGP Signed Part:No public key for 29EEE2D6ECF442F9 created at 2022-02-06T03:38:03+0100 using RSA]]
>   For those following this ITP, the end is in sight! I have whittled
> down the huge list of missing dependencies to just nine packages, all
> of which are ready for upload. They're just waiting on sponsorship
> and/or other dependencies to make it through into unstable.
>
>   The packaging work for LXD is also largely complete. The git repo is
> available on salsa [1], and I would invite interested parties to take a
> look and provide any feedback. This is the most complicated package
> I've created to date, so I'm sure there's room for improvement.

I can do the sponsorship, send me the list of things to review by mail!
:)

-- 
PEB

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #364 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Matt Barry <matt@hazelmollusk.org>

To: 768073@bugs.debian.org

Subject: "ping!"

Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2022 00:53:14 -0400

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi,

I imagine I arrived at this bug the same way a lot of folks did, trying
to sleuth out the reason why (e.g.) autopkgtest-build-lxd is broken in
Debian.. but perhaps I might be the first that read all the way to the
end to find a repo that builds somewhat working packages!  Kudos and
thanks!

What is the state of the packages at the moment?  Are there any areas
that need help or testing?  (I'm not a go expert, but happy to help out
if I can.)

Cheers,
Matt

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #371 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Mathias Gibbens <mathias@calenhad.com>

To: Matt Barry <matt@hazelmollusk.org>, 768073@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: "ping!"

Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2022 12:57:58 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 00:53:14 -0400 Matt Barry <matt@hazelmollusk.org>
wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I imagine I arrived at this bug the same way a lot of folks did,
trying
> to sleuth out the reason why (e.g.) autopkgtest-build-lxd is broken
in
> Debian.. but perhaps I might be the first that read all the way to
the
> end to find a repo that builds somewhat working packages!  Kudos and
> thanks!
> 
> What is the state of the packages at the moment?  Are there any areas
> that need help or testing?  (I'm not a go expert, but happy to help
out
> if I can.)
> 
> Cheers,
> Matt

  The final thing that's been preventing upload of LXD is an issue that
was found with a filename conflict with the lxc packaging (#1010843). I
neglected to block this bug by that one, but just did so.

  The good news is that a new version of lxc with that fix was just
released, so hopefully the lxc packages can get updated after which
I'll be requesting an upload of LXD to NEW. :)

  There is one known edge case use bug with LXD [1], but that's in the
hands of upstream and isn't significant enough to delay the uploading
of LXD.

Mathias

[1] -- https://github.com/lxc/lxc/issues/4150

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #376 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Matt Barry <matt@hazelmollusk.org>

To: Mathias Gibbens <mathias@calenhad.com>, 768073@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: "ping!"

Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2022 10:32:20 -0400

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Fri, 2022-06-17 at 12:57 +0000, Mathias Gibbens wrote:
>   The final thing that's been preventing upload of LXD is an issue
> that
> was found with a filename conflict with the lxc packaging (#1010843).
> I
> neglected to block this bug by that one, but just did so.
> 
>   The good news is that a new version of lxc with that fix was just
> released, so hopefully the lxc packages can get updated after which
> I'll be requesting an upload of LXD to NEW. :)

That's great news!  I noticed the --force-overwrite.. otherwise though,
I've been using it to run autopkgtests and it worked great (right up
until zfs broke in unstable ;).

Thanks for your work!

Matt

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #381 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Per Lundberg <per.lundberg@hibox.tv>

To: "768073@bugs.debian.org" <768073@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: Status of package in the NEW queue

Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2022 08:36:00 +0000

Hi,

I think we are probably a number of people excited to see this (soon!) finally making it into Debian proper. :) I am currently running LXD as a snap, but it would just be so much nicer and cleaner to be able to use the "real" packages for this.

The package is currently in the Debian "new" queue, where it has been since August 4: https://ftp-master.debian.org/new/lxd_5.0.0-1.html

Are there any impediments from seeing this making its way into unstable/experimental anytime soon, or is it just a matter of the FTP masters not having had time to look into it yet?

Best regards,
Per

Message #386 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Mathias Gibbens <mathias@calenhad.com>

To: Per Lundberg <per.lundberg@hibox.tv>

Cc: 768073@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Status of package in the NEW queue

Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2022 11:47:43 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Tue, 6 Sep 2022 08:36:00 +0000 Per Lundberg <per.lundberg@hibox.tv>
wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I think we are probably a number of people excited to see this
(soon!) finally making it into Debian proper. :) I am currently running
LXD as a snap, but it would just be so much nicer and cleaner to be
able to use the "real" packages for this.
> 
> The package is currently in the Debian "new" queue, where it has been
since August 4: https://ftp-master.debian.org/new/lxd_5.0.0-1.html
> 
> Are there any impediments from seeing this making its way into
unstable/experimental anytime soon, or is it just a matter of the FTP
masters not having had time to look into it yet?

  At this point in time we're just waiting on the package to make it
through the NEW queue -- nothing more to be done right now. Hopefully
it won't be too much longer, but I can't predict when that will be. If
it gets to be within a couple months of the bookworm freezes beginning,
I'll probably ping the ftpmasters to see if they could prioritize
looking at it, so that there would be sufficient time for LXD to be in
unstable and get some testing prior to transition freezes kicking in.

  Also, I've got the LXD 5.0.1 update staged locally, so once LXD
passes NEW there will be a pretty quick update to the latest LTS
version.

Mathias

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #391 received at 768073@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org>

To: Per Lundberg <per.lundberg@hibox.tv>, 768073@bugs.debian.org

Cc: debian-wnpp@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#768073: Status of package in the NEW queue

Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2022 23:19:56 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Per Lundberg <per.lundberg@hibox.tv> wrote on 06/09/2022 at 10:36:00+0200:

> Hi,
>
> I think we are probably a number of people excited to see this (soon!)
> finally making it into Debian proper. :) I am currently running LXD as
> a snap, but it would just be so much nicer and cleaner to be able to
> use the "real" packages for this.
>
> The package is currently in the Debian "new" queue, where it has been since August 4: https://ftp-master.debian.org/new/lxd_5.0.0-1.html
>
> Are there any impediments from seeing this making its way into unstable/experimental anytime soon, or is it just a matter of the FTP masters not having had time to look into it yet?
>
> Best regards,

Something stays in NEW until a ftpmaster has time to review it. From
there, either it's accepted or rejected, but in both cases it gets out
from NEW.

Nothing can be done on our side, except asking ftpmasters to review
faster, but it's something to do only in urgent cases, and a new
package, even as exciting as LXD, is anything but urgent.

Cheers!
-- 
PEB

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #396 received at 768073-close@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Debian FTP Masters <ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org>

To: 768073-close@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Bug#768073: fixed in lxd 5.0.0-1

Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2022 13:06:19 +0000

Source: lxd
Source-Version: 5.0.0-1
Done: Mathias Gibbens <mathias@calenhad.com>

We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
lxd, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive.

A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.  If you
have further comments please address them to 768073@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Mathias Gibbens <mathias@calenhad.com> (supplier of updated lxd package)

(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Format: 1.8
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2022 17:09:19 +0530
Source: lxd
Binary: lxd lxd-agent lxd-client lxd-client-dbgsym lxd-dbgsym lxd-migrate lxd-migrate-dbgsym lxd-tools lxd-tools-dbgsym
Architecture: source amd64
Version: 5.0.0-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Debian Go Packaging Team <team+pkg-go@tracker.debian.org>
Changed-By: Mathias Gibbens <mathias@calenhad.com>
Description:
 lxd        - Powerful system container and virtual machine manager - daemon
 lxd-agent  - LXD guest agent
 lxd-client - Powerful system container and virtual machine manager - client
 lxd-migrate - LXD physical to instance migration tool
 lxd-tools  - Powerful system container and virtual machine manager - extra too
Closes: 768073
Changes:
 lxd (5.0.0-1) unstable; urgency=medium
 .
   * Initial release (Closes: #768073)
Checksums-Sha1:
 51994257eb930d5078325169345b8e0464b1c532 3881 lxd_5.0.0-1.dsc
 f3ff9da01fd20f8e31731a5f2f2477b7d7e1c61e 3096332 lxd_5.0.0.orig.tar.gz
 c2602fbc317b84312718960aad0553eeba46b5f5 12124 lxd_5.0.0-1.debian.tar.xz
 ba6d5191ae213e63d2d2b272685b7f6505f6d859 3297652 lxd-agent_5.0.0-1_amd64.deb
 572c375e83fac363420f52253d8a607f9a41a2ad 4324564 lxd-client-dbgsym_5.0.0-1_amd64.deb
 68e165d38c3ea27572e70b15a3349b001191c50a 4240600 lxd-client_5.0.0-1_amd64.deb
 e02ee285ba43e75b1feece179d3f7097fdd0dba1 13939068 lxd-dbgsym_5.0.0-1_amd64.deb
 8cecab9c0460ec90b2002f5447eb51c1db095a50 5507256 lxd-migrate-dbgsym_5.0.0-1_amd64.deb
 e94604544df03141f43c52657072457eb7f88983 4991200 lxd-migrate_5.0.0-1_amd64.deb
 e150a16eec42bda1c5381aa169e3d6cca1a2dcd3 11049232 lxd-tools-dbgsym_5.0.0-1_amd64.deb
 ca7f78706002f4276f83d41d4589fbe2f45ceee0 9657084 lxd-tools_5.0.0-1_amd64.deb
 65f097e4bdad7efbfc83477f16eae39dc923006d 21892 lxd_5.0.0-1_amd64.buildinfo
 d4c40a20346e4247642c8f28004b6f271737ec84 13148628 lxd_5.0.0-1_amd64.deb
Checksums-Sha256:
 03ec3ad09ab04b47e289c76bb51ff139589462632bf52ce0216750100edbb854 3881 lxd_5.0.0-1.dsc
 81005d0ab494471a6d4347952067b4b4f54a0ae2d6ea39db803512490781c00f 3096332 lxd_5.0.0.orig.tar.gz
 9bc602e25679f965df3aa26180bff0e2fbf2a59db837f901aa7c813649cb9829 12124 lxd_5.0.0-1.debian.tar.xz
 e8ab24770fa5aae6609e5e806012c051440093cdd946d9373768ff58a8b0e64f 3297652 lxd-agent_5.0.0-1_amd64.deb
 b4251859766cc1021f9d8bfa99d20b94c89e1cf52c587f7ab6519a3a2efd882d 4324564 lxd-client-dbgsym_5.0.0-1_amd64.deb
 a04d18b82348fae89c06c5d5742298fb72e9e6be08018b32bdb3fbdefde023cb 4240600 lxd-client_5.0.0-1_amd64.deb
 4f38db36963abd282e72a1fc7925285bfb72aa1f656638a2c0e1d2d8120bb851 13939068 lxd-dbgsym_5.0.0-1_amd64.deb
 700942d4fb7b3c258c5b63d4016b8ff2b74a9381d7b02c17227c468bde504ac3 5507256 lxd-migrate-dbgsym_5.0.0-1_amd64.deb
 1e06e9fe75af89038b34d70ffce5528f650ecab62377a08fbcb93582939a0dec 4991200 lxd-migrate_5.0.0-1_amd64.deb
 e4444c552be3dc8100da26cbb35bf1a3ea9eb361f935ad4d77982ef70654d78b 11049232 lxd-tools-dbgsym_5.0.0-1_amd64.deb
 5083cda7c06e34c76be153f731f4dd2bd4825a404c450a67ae121b0a256b16d6 9657084 lxd-tools_5.0.0-1_amd64.deb
 0bebdc926576b71712184b2fefe2e6043ffb42cfbe7a0cb6d6d7babf29ed2952 21892 lxd_5.0.0-1_amd64.buildinfo
 f3b1e2136d0fa227cdb094f80b635683f64c0584f73d0dfb18e442cbe21c8c55 13148628 lxd_5.0.0-1_amd64.deb
Files:
 299cc526807c1fdca742f609940c2f9b 3881 admin optional lxd_5.0.0-1.dsc
 aaf58bafacd33edb0d7eb76641d8f5da 3096332 admin optional lxd_5.0.0.orig.tar.gz
 c217831baa81bde0e62f614c374433af 12124 admin optional lxd_5.0.0-1.debian.tar.xz
 3c97e5bf8898913746cb8db17db0bd76 3297652 admin optional lxd-agent_5.0.0-1_amd64.deb
 a03af359348fb41713c660f0bf0dbffe 4324564 debug optional lxd-client-dbgsym_5.0.0-1_amd64.deb
 6e774db68306ef0bd0b9c73e488b5985 4240600 admin optional lxd-client_5.0.0-1_amd64.deb
 c2ef060d08690dff80e8afb9389cafb5 13939068 debug optional lxd-dbgsym_5.0.0-1_amd64.deb
 00fafa912cf10c550d3715a67de45189 5507256 debug optional lxd-migrate-dbgsym_5.0.0-1_amd64.deb
 feca2f2b9bfcaaffa36fbb78fb9cafee 4991200 admin optional lxd-migrate_5.0.0-1_amd64.deb
 adc8cd28cab2fd52bd2f60630ce1235e 11049232 debug optional lxd-tools-dbgsym_5.0.0-1_amd64.deb
 9a89e2841733c3c4903ca0eb5836ce0e 9657084 admin optional lxd-tools_5.0.0-1_amd64.deb
 e68ac912c107165970099489a8e1da8c 21892 admin optional lxd_5.0.0-1_amd64.buildinfo
 a0f082d263f23defcae7cd7e710fb070 13148628 admin optional lxd_5.0.0-1_amd64.deb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=HfO4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.