ProGet Support deb822

stefan.hakansson_8938

Recent Ubuntu releases use deb822 / ubuntu.sources for package handling. However, if I connect an deb822 source (e.g., http://sto1.clouds.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/) to a feed, it seems that the output of that feed is not deb822 but rather according to the old format. Is there any plan to properly handle deb822 sources in ProGet?

stevedennis

Hi @stefan-hakansson_8938,

I'm not familiar with deb882 / ubuntu.sources... is that a new kind of format? Is this causing some kind of problem or issue with clients?

Thanks,
Steve

stefan.hakansson_8938

Hi Steve, thanks for responding so quickly.

I think deb822 is a newer format (than the "one-line-style" format), and it is preferred in the context I'm working in. There is some info in https://manpages.debian.org/stretch/apt/sources.list.5.en.html.

I have to focus on other stuff for some time now, so perhaps we can let this one rest until I can provide more input. But for some info, my /etc/apt/sources.list.d/ubuntu.sources file contains
Types: deb
URIs: http://sto1.clouds.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/
Suites: noble noble-updates noble-backports
Components: main
Signed-By: /usr/share/keyrings/ubuntu-archive-keyring.gpg

I hope to be able to just replace the URI (and the key) to point at a ProGet feed connected to http://sto1.clouds.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ that I have setup. However it seems that curl http://sto1.clouds.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ returns something that I can not obtain from curling to the ProGet feed so I am not sure it will work. But let me investigate more and come back later.

Of course it is possible to work around and go back to .list files, buf my preference would be to keep using .sources.

Thanks,
Stefan

stevedennis

Hi @stefan-hakansson_8938 ,

Thanks for the additional information; so if I'm reading it correctly, it's basically a different format/style of index files?

So far as I can tell, it's been around for quite a while (2016?), but doesn't seem to be widely used or mandatory? I didn't look too deeply.

In any case, supporting one style of Debian index files is already a challenge, since we are reimplementing everything from scratch (and not using their tools). As with many package formats, the "real specs" differ a bit from the docs and can only be discovered by studying the source code and/or behavior of clients. Supporting a second format is a big investment, and doesn't make sense unless there's a compelling need (like clients deprecating old format, etc).

If you're looking to query/manipulate packages, I would suggest checking out pgutil instead:
https://github.com/Inedo/pgutil

Thanks,
Steve

stefan.hakansson_8938

Hi Steve, I fully understand. I will carry on using the existing format then. Thanks for the tip regarding use of pgutil!

Thanks,
Stefan