Add Packages.xz support

[j0hax]

Description

Hello there! I noticed that the main Debian Bookworm repository works well with RMT, but the Debian-Security repository only copies dists/ without the pool/ directory which contains the packages. Upon inspection of the RMT code I realized that only Packages.gz files are parsed, which are not contained in the Debian-Security repo.

How to test

Mirror http://security.debian.org/debian-security/dists/bookworm-security/main/binary-all/ or any repository which uses the .xz variant over Packages.gz

Change Type

Please select the correct option.

• Bug Fix (a non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New Feature (a non-breaking change which adds new functionality)
• Documentation Update (a change which only updates documentation)

Checklist

Please check off each item if the requirement is met.

• I have reviewed my own code and believe that it's ready for an external review.
• I have provided comments for any hard-to-understand code.
• I have documented the MANUAL.md file with any changes to the user experience.
• If my changes are non-trivial, I have added a changelog entry to notify users at package/obs/rmt-server.changes.

Review

Please check out our review guidelines
and get in touch with the author to get a shared understanding of the change.

[j0hax]

Also, the Debian Repository Format states:

Servers should offer only xz compressed files, except for the special cases listed above. Some historical clients may only understand gzip compression, if these need to be supported, gzip-compressed files may be offered as well.

I believe parsing both formats should be fine for now, but maybe it would be an idea to (at some point in the far future) phase out reading Packages.gz?

[j0hax]

Friendly ping to @ngetahun

[digitaltom]

Could you please fix the lint issue (rubocop), and make sure the unit tests are green (rspec). Thank you :-)

[ngetahun]

@j0hax Please extend existing unit tests. Do you have repos in mind still using xz?

[felixsch]

Hi @j0hax thank you very much for your contribution. I see this merge request is currently stale. We would love to in cooperate your changes but the project requires to have at least a unit test to check the implementation correctly working. Would you be fine if we take your contribution and add unit tests on our own?

cheers,

[j0hax]

Hi @j0hax thank you very much for your contribution. I see this merge request is currently stale. We would love to in cooperate your changes but the project requires to have at least a unit test to check the implementation correctly working. Would you be fine if we take your contribution and add unit tests on our own?

cheers,

Pardon me for letting this PR go stale. Feel free to extend and improve as you see fit! 😄