On Sun, Feb 2, 2025 at 12:52 PM Nicolas Peugnet <nico...@club1.fr> wrote:
> On 02/02/2025 2:43 PM, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 1, 2025 at 7:42 PM Nicolas Peugnet <nico...@club1.fr> wrote: > >>>> Then I realized that the docker.io package is in fact a "Multiple > >>>> Upstream Tarballs" package, and as the cli, engine and buildkit are > all > >>>> inter-dependent of each other, I think it would probably be better to > >>>> add "moby/buildkit" in the docker.io source package. > >> > >> So about this, what do you think? For now, I will continue to work on > >> the separated package for "moby/buildkit", but wouldn't it be better if > >> it were part of the docker.io package? > >> > > > > I took a look at the docker.io package, to refresh my recollection > > on the topic of dependencies, and I think I agree with you. > > > > If I understand things correctly, we currently get away with that by > keeping > > "buildkit" in the "vendor/" directory. You are suggesting to promote that > > dependency as part of the MUT upload. > > Yes, exactly. > I remember now that I considered that before, but then didn't follow up because: a) I wanted to minimize the risk and time to get the package updated b) the version of buildkit bundled within docker is "known to work". Using newer sources has not been tested and may introduce surprises. In this case it turns out that the newer version of buildkit does introduce dependencies on hcsshim and jaeger, which luckily can be patched out rather easily. > That sounds reasonable. Can you work on a MR to modify the docker.io > package > > to incorporate this new tarball? > > I'll try to do it, but I've never worked with MUT packages yet. I'll > take look at the README.source. > Please have a look at https://salsa.debian.org/go-team/packages/docker/-/merge_requests/14 I'm not that versed myself with MUT packages, but at least that MR builds for me. If you find it "good enough" for experimental, please don't hesitate to upload it there. Best, -rt
