On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 2:57 AM Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat 2020-01-18 00:31:11 +0800, Shengjing Zhu wrote: > > There're a lot of packages in archive which users are not expected to > > install, for examples: > > > > * all golang-*-dev packages. (currently there are 1k+) > > * maybe[1] all librust-*-dev packages. (currently there also are 1k+) > > > > For Go, these packages are only meant to build other Go program (usually > > arch:any), and in the scope of producing Debian packages. > > I think you mean to say that "-dev" packages are designed for developers > only. > > > End users(aka normal Go developers) don't need these -dev packages. > > Arguably, if i'm going to work on go software in the debian context, i > might indeed want these packages. But the distinction isn't "end users > vs. debian developers", it's more "end users vs. developers". Normal Go > developers might well fall in the second camp because they need other > development tools that the OS can give them. > > So I think the more useful cut is between packages that are for > development purposes (-dev packages more generally) and packages that > are intended for non-developers. > > For example, a minimalist system running debian, that will never see any > software development, and wants automatic updates, could conceivably > just want to use a generic "non-developer" repository. > > One approach would be to split the "main" archive section into a > "non-developer" base section, and a "developer" augmented section > (similar to the relationship between "non-free" and "contrib" sections). > > Another approach would be to leave the current "main" section as-is, but > create a "nodev" section which is a strict subset of "main". This > latter approach seems like less of a dramatic shift in the current > archive. > > If there were a "nodev" section, i'd definitely deploy any minimal > IoT-style debian devices pointing at "nodev". > > > A keyword in Control-Filed to reflect these packages, then move them to > > another repo. > > You could start experimenting with this by stripping the archive of all > *-dev packages and anything that depends on them, and see whether it > results in a manintainable, standalone repo. > > Would you be up for doing that and publishing the repo someplace for > people to play with it? That would give us a sense of how feasible this > approach would be. > > --dkg
I think you're making the scope broader. What in my mind is the golang-*-dev packages(I take librust-*-dev into account since I think they are similar, but anyway I'm not familiar enough). These are explicit documented that user shouldn't install them. Except you(aka _debian_ developer) are building a deb package for _Debian_, but it's usually in a chroot(more specifically, a buildd variant chroot). It's even not recommended to use these packages to build deb not for Debian. -- Shengjing Zhu
