On 4/29/24 21:13, Daniel Baumann wrote:
On 4/29/24 19:50, Daniel Baumann wrote:pushing to the repo requires me to be added to the salsa project.. would you mind adding me?in the meantime, I've pushed to here:https://git.progress-linux.org/users/daniel.baumann/debian/todo/knot-resolver/log/
Nice!
before I'll continue: what's the idea of adding knot-resolver-manager binary package?That is a great question and in fact the primary topic I wanted some other DD to review. You basically answered that already, but let me elaborate why it's like this.I can't think of a reason why one would use kresd (knot-resolver-core) without the manager, and thus, would fold knot-resolver-manager and knot-resolver-core (back) into knot-resolver. But probably I'm missing something..
Manager was initially developed in a separate repo imported into kresd as a git submodule and it wasn't clear back then how integrated / optional / required it will be.
Manager is now quite integrated in kresd and while it's theoretically possible to use knot-resolver-core without knot-resolver-manager, this isn't officially supported and generally a use case probably not worth supporting.
Secondary reason for that was that there is no upgrade path from 5.x to 6.x so it's unwanted for knot-resolver 5 packages to auto-update to 6.
For that, the package probably needs a different name (like knot-resolver6) so I made this little trick of moving knot-resolver to knot-resolver-core and added manager to knot-resolver-manager with Provides: knot-resolver6. That way no upgrade is triggered as there is no knot-resolver package in 6.0.
However, this is probably just unneeded complexity - I guess the packages could or even should be merged.
So what do you suggest? Merging -manager and -core into knot-resolver6? Or is there a way to prevent upgrade without changing package name?
Cheers, Jakub
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
