Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Create a first-class deb WORKSPACE rule #7

Closed
dlorenc opened this issue May 10, 2017 · 6 comments
Closed

Create a first-class deb WORKSPACE rule #7

dlorenc opened this issue May 10, 2017 · 6 comments
Assignees

Comments

@dlorenc
Copy link
Contributor

dlorenc commented May 10, 2017

This rule should make it easier for users to depend on debs from package repositories without needing to use http_file.

For UX, we should consider something like:

deb_package(
  name = 'openssl',
  version = '1.0.1f-1ubuntu2.22'
)

How should the apt sources fit in here though? Maybe we could add a list of those to the deb_package rule, or create another type of rule to reference apt sources, and depend on those in dep_package?

@dlorenc
Copy link
Contributor Author

dlorenc commented May 10, 2017

cc @mattmoor @r2d4 wdyt?

@mattmoor
Copy link
Contributor

mattmoor commented May 10, 2017

I think that we'll want two rules:

   deb_mirror(
       name = "blah",
       url = "https://...",
       # Forget what these are called off the top of my head :)
       foo = "main",
       bar = "jessie",
   )

   deb_pkg(
      name = "openssl",
      mirror = ":blah",
      version = "...",
   )

Alternately we could specify the channel in the rules, but I think this provides a nice way of sharing the deb source. WDYT?

@r2d4
Copy link
Contributor

r2d4 commented May 10, 2017

Just looking that travis rules we recently added, maybe we want to expose something similar?

https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/installing-dependencies/#Installing-Packages-on-Container-Based-Infrastructure

Maybe a top level

deb(
    sources = ["trusty"],
    packages = [
        "gcc-4.8",
        "...",
    ],
)

@mattmoor
Copy link
Contributor

@r2d4 Fixed?

@dlorenc
Copy link
Contributor Author

dlorenc commented Jun 16, 2017

I think there's a bit more work around SHA/checksum validation, but that could be a separate issue.

@r2d4
Copy link
Contributor

r2d4 commented Jun 16, 2017

Closing, there's still a bit more work to be done around UX and validation, but I think this issue can be closed because the rules are in a usable state.

@r2d4 r2d4 closed this as completed Jun 16, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants