Re: [ITP] etckeeper 1.18.17-1

[Christian Franke <Christian.Franke@t-online.de>]

Adam Dinwoodie wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 12:58:23PM +0200, Christian Franke wrote:
>> I would like to contribute etckeeper.
>>
>> https://etckeeper.branchable.com/
>> https://repology.org/project/etckeeper/versions
>>
>> etckeeper-1.18.17-1.hint:
>> category: Utils
>> requires: bash coreutils grep sed
>> sdesc: "Store /etc in git or mercurial"
>> ldesc: "Etckeeper is a tool to let /etc be stored in git or
>> mercurial.  It hooks into Cygwin Setup to automatically commit changes
>> made to /etc during package upgrades.  It tracks file metadata
>> (permissions, owner, group) that version control systems do not
>> normally support."
>>
>> Package for review:
>> wget -r -nH --cut-dirs=2 \
>> https://chrfranke.de/cygwin/noarch/etckeeper/etckeeper-1.18.17-1.hint \
>> https://chrfranke.de/cygwin/noarch/etckeeper/etckeeper-1.18.17-1-src.hint \
>> https://chrfranke.de/cygwin/noarch/etckeeper/etckeeper-1.18.17-1-src.tar.xz
>> \
>> https://chrfranke.de/cygwin/noarch/etckeeper/etckeeper-1.18.17-1.tar.xz \
>> https://chrfranke.de/cygwin/noarch/etckeeper/etckeeper-1.18.17-1.sha256
>>
>> Tested with git. Only a few tests were done with hg.
> LGTM!  I've not tested the actual function, but the packaging looks
> sound, and I trust etckeeper enough that if the packaging is sound I'm
> happy the rest will follow :)

Thanks for review. I did various test, also with a local build of setup 
which includes my patch to automatically run 'etckeeper pre-install'.


> I do wonder if it's worth trying to submit your patches upstream; they
> seem like the sort of thing the upstream project might be interested in
> taking, and it minimises the amount of work you have to do as a
> maintainer.

I definitely will do this.


> I'm also vaguely pondering whether it's worth adding git as a
> dependency.  That's not strictly right, since etckeeper doesn't *need*
> git, but it's going to be the use case for 99.9% of users, and in the
> absence of Cygwin having a "recommends" style dependency, just adding
> git seems like it might be sensible.  But I'm far from convinced there.

I'm also not sure and decided to add no git dependency. 99.8% of the 
users considering to install etckeeper may already have git installed :-)

The Debian package does not use "rec" but "dep (git or hg or brz or 
darcs)" which defaults to git.
If git is installed, the Debian postinst script runs 'etckeeper init && 
etckeeper commit' on fresh installs. I decided to leave this to the user.

-- 
Regards,
Christian