Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/joeyh/propellor into pin

3 files changed, 62 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/forum/Docker.hs_will_Break_in_Stretch.mdwn b/doc/forum/Docker.hs_will_Break_in_Stretch.mdwn
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..c89c995c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/forum/Docker.hs_will_Break_in_Stretch.mdwn
@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+G'day Joey!
+
+I'm in the process of deploying Docker infrastructure via Propellor on both Jessie and Stretch and I've come to discover that Docker.io did not make it into Stretch:
+
+* [docker.io REMOVED from testing](https://packages.qa.debian.org/d/docker.io/news/20161012T163916Z.html)
+* [docker.io - Linux container runtime](https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/docker.io)
+* [Excuse for docker.io](https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=docker.io)
+
+So the below from Docker.hs will fail beyond Jessie:
+
+    installed :: Property DebianLike
+    installed = Apt.installed ["docker.io"]
+
+Before I embarked on my own path to re-implement the above (probably based on [How to install Docker engine on Debian 9 Stretch Linux](https://linuxconfig.org/how-to-install-docker-engine-on-debian-9-stretch-linux)), I thought I'd see what you thought might be the way to resolve this, so that my work could be contributed upstream (if suitable).
+
+Thanks!
diff --git a/doc/todo/new_apt_pinning_properties.mdwn b/doc/todo/new_apt_pinning_properties.mdwn
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..d32bcbb2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/todo/new_apt_pinning_properties.mdwn
@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+My branch `pin` of repo `https://git.spwhitton.name/propellor` adds
+
+- `Apt.suiteAvailablePinned`
+- `Apt.pinnedTo`
+- `File.containsBlock`
+- a haddock for `File.containsLines`
+
+There is one TODO in a comment that relates to propellor's algebraic data types.  I'd be grateful for help with that.  --spwhitton
diff --git a/doc/todo/new_apt_pinning_properties/comment_1_fd9e6775868eaa8d6aee49d06944ef0c._comment b/doc/todo/new_apt_pinning_properties/comment_1_fd9e6775868eaa8d6aee49d06944ef0c._comment
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..4800608f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/todo/new_apt_pinning_properties/comment_1_fd9e6775868eaa8d6aee49d06944ef0c._comment
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+[[!comment format=mdwn
+ username="joey"
+ subject="""comment 1"""
+ date="2017-02-01T20:00:47Z"
+ content="""
+I wonder if it would be better to separate `suiteAvailablePinned`
+into `suiteAvailable` and `suitePinned`? The latter could require
+the former.
+
+`pinnedTo` should probably be DebianLike not UnixLike.
+And its `[String]` parameter ought to be `[Package]`.
+
+Is `File.containsBlock` necessary? Seems that if you care about
+ordering of blocks in the file, you generally should use
+`File.hasContent` to specify the full content. Rather than using
+/etc/apt/preferences.d/10propellor.pref for multiple properties,
+you could use a separate file for each `pinnedTo'` with the parameters
+encoded in the filename.
+
+As to the TODO, I tried adding this:
+
+	robustly' :: RevertableProperty DebianLike DebianLike -> RevertableProperty DebianLike DebianLike
+	robustly' p = p `fallback` (update `before` p)
+
+And the compiler tells me it's wrong because `update` is not revertable.
+But of course, there's no need to revert apt-get update, so this compiles:
+
+	robustly' :: RevertableProperty DebianLike DebianLike -> RevertableProperty DebianLike DebianLike
+	robustly' p = p `fallback` ((update <!> (doNothing :: Property DebianLike)) `before` p)
+
+Cleaning it up left an an exersise for the reader. Might be possible
+to combine `robustly` and `robustly'` into a single function, but I'm
+not able to see how immediately.
+
+However.. Seems to me that whatever you wanted to use `robustly` with to
+spur that TODO, you could just apply it to the first Property of the
+RevertableProperty, and not to the second one?
+"""]]