-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 384
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
Preparations to switch to APK package manager #1048
Comments
Below packages that would cause trouble. Please bear in mind that PKG_RELEASE is soonish prefixed with an Naughty list:
|
cool i will like to move cjdns into main packages in order for future builds to compile with packages/lang/rust if ok. i can fix up for apk there? |
this sounds like a good time to consider a total re-write of the cjdns packages, since cjdns segfaults when being installed and when trying to start, as noted in issue 908. the CJDNS crew have been trying to re-compile an ipk from source with me, but we're hitting a lot of stumbling blocks on this... |
@aparcar the batman-adv version number is created by the OpenWrt kernel build scripts. Can you please explain us what we should do. Because I don't see any modifications in packages like mt76 or mac80211 to support apk versions - they seem to use exactly the same version number format which (according to you) we should avoid in the kmod-batman-adv package Here some examples from my current x86-64 build (main branch):
There are no changes at all in the latest apk PRs (see openwrt/openwrt#14918, openwrt/openwrt#14980, ) for kernel packages in the main repo - and the main repo is responsible for the creation of these linux_version+pkg_version version numbers. And I don't get where the And even when assuming that
And I am not sure what kind of branch you've tested. bmx6 doesn't exist in main. And the batman-adv version you listed here is neither in main, openwrt-23.05 or openwrt-22.03 And you're container returns an "unauthorized" when trying to download the manifest. I couldn't find any similarly named container in the openwrt or your private "package" container registry. Wasn't this correctly published? |
You can find the version compare code at https://github.com/alpinelinux/apk-tools/blob/f9eaeb6429325eeb5a17ed771fd477be9227fe15/src/version.c#L275 It just iterates over the tokens until they are not equal anymore. So if it can be stored in So token_first and token_next seem to be relevant: https://github.com/alpinelinux/apk-tools/blob/f9eaeb6429325eeb5a17ed771fd477be9227fe15/src/version.c#L141. It seems to require a number at the beginning and then various stuff can follow. They documented it like this:
I didn't find (at the moment) anything which explains your requested format |
Sorry of the noise, attaching the semver'ish version (2024.01) to the Linux version works just fine, I suspected the Linux version containing anything not-server and thereby breaking the version check. Right now it's |
@wfleurant in the meantime, I added a PR to solve the issue #1060 |
Hi all, some fellow developers and me worked for some time now on making APK the new package manager for OpenWrt, replacing the unmaintained OPKG fork we've been using for the longest time.
APK is actively developed and used in multiple other distributions, e.g. Alpine Linux 🎉
While there is till some work ahead, I'd like to prepare everyone who maintains a package to verify that the
PKG_VERSION
followsSemantic Versioning<major>.<minor>.<fixup>[.<sub1>...]
. APK uses a deterministic algorithm to compare versions and does not like random strings, except a valid hash prefixed with a~
.If in doubt, please use the Docker container below to verify the used version is valid:
It will print whatever version is not valid, if you get a zero exit code, you're fine.
Please feel free to reach out for assistance and have a look at the core migration of versions.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: