Status of packaging for dool

SUMMARY

Hi,

I'd like to inquire about the current status and ongoing efforts for dool packaging and distribution.

dool seems to offer snap and rpm packages, but is not present in any of the major Unix distributions' repos.

We might want to elect some maintainers for:

Mac brew
Ubuntu
Centos/RHEL
Python pip

Anything going on or contributions accepted by the author?

Thanks

Homebrew/homebrew-core#87693
I am writing homebrew formula for dool, but it hasn't released yet. #4

Where can I find the RPM package built from it ?

This is a great idea. I'd love to see dool packaged for more distros, and it should be very simple. I just updated the .spec file and it now builds correctly (I think) on my Rocky 8 system. I would accept any PRs for package maintainers.

Packaging dool should be simple and you can follow the flow in the install.py script.

The dool script itself needs to go in your $PATH
Plug-ins go in either /usr/share/dool/ or ~/.dool/
The man page should go in /usr/share/man1/

haha I wrote a brew formula but dool doesn't work on macOS because it doesn't have /proc. leaving it here for posterity in case dool one day does

class Dool < Formula
  desc "Monitor your system"
  homepage "https://github.com/scottchiefbaker/dool"
  url "https://github.com/scottchiefbaker/dool/archive/refs/tags/v1.3.0.tar.gz"
  sha256 "a1537c27e62d12d00d79f60bec456e6a2ec4a0189d44a28ac1ed9effdcb0ec2d"
  license "GPL-3.0-or-later"
  depends_on "python"

  def install
    bin.install "dool"
    man1.install "docs/dool.1"
    pkgshare.install Dir["plugins/*.py"]
  end
end

debian is tracked in https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1032875

@anarcat

@anarcat that's good to know I hadn't seen that yet. Looks like Debian needs to be poked/updated as Dool is very mature now and well supported.

I have submitted a request to have dool included in RHEL distros.

@aijanai

@aijanai do you have any experience packaging things? I'd love to see this packages for Redhat and Debian but I don't have much experience with that.

Thanks to Uroš Knupleš we have preliminary deb support in #81 now

@aijanai

@aijanai do you have any experience packaging things? I'd love to see this packages for Redhat and Debian but I don't have much experience with that.

Saw now. Yeah, I previously had experience with both systems. I can give it a try

@aijanai

@aijanai we currently have packaging for: RHEL (unofficial), Python/PIP, and Debian. As a primarily RedHat user I'd love to get dool into the official RedHat repositories but I don't know enough about packaging Python applications to make it happen.

Where is Debian package available? I would like to to download and test it.

@uroskn

@uroskn did most (all) of the Debian work? Let's loop him in here and see if we can't get packaging stuff back on track. I kind of broke things moving some files around.

I know very little about .deb packaging. Need someone who is more familar with it to take a look at our build script.

JFYI: dool is now packaged for openSUSE

@jubalh

@jubalh thanks for the info on openSUSE. I see some changes were made to the .spec file in the openSUSE release. Did you make those changes? We're looking for someone more knowledgeable than me to work on the .spec for other OSs as well.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2263031

@scottchiefbaker

@scottchiefbaker yes I maintain dool (and used to maintain dstat) in openSUSE. Our spec file can be seen here: https://build.opensuse.org/projects/server:monitoring/packages/dool/files/dool.spec?expand=1

Different distribution might use different macros in their spec file though. You should be able to take ours and then it might be that you need to make small adjustments to fit them for another distribution.

If you want to push dool to Fedora then you will need to find a maintainer who is doing this. I can help writing a spec file but I'm not Fedora maintainer. Which contains more than just writing a spec file. Need to know about all their processes and rules and have accounts etc.

You could also just write your own spec file and publish an rpm here on GitHub.

We have an old spec file from dstat that builds: https://github.com/scottchiefbaker/dool/blob/next/packaging/rpm/dool.spec

I don't know much beyond that though. As you mention we need to find a Fedora maintainer as well. As a Redhat user I'd love to see dool in Fedora/RHEL so if you know anyone who can help, let me know.

JFYI here you can see where dool is already packaged: https://repology.org/project/dool/versions

Bit late to the party was trying to catch some fish, I use dool for monitoring large package builds. Saving the output via tee to compare build info.
Slackware has a package via SBo details below.
https://slackbuilds.org/repository/15.0/system/dool/

Add CI workflow to build and smoke-test the Debian package

Fix RPM license tag and add CI workflow for RPM builds

Restore standards-compliant Debian packaging

Add CI workflow to build and smoke-test the Debian package

Fix RPM license tag and add CI workflow for RPM builds

Restore standards-compliant Debian packaging

Add CI workflow to build and smoke-test the Debian package

Fix RPM license tag and add CI workflow for RPM builds

Navigation Menu

Repository navigation

Status of packaging for dool #4

SUMMARY

3 remaining items

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Status of packaging for dool #4

Description

SUMMARY

Activity

curoky commented on Oct 22, 2021

pmoranga commented on Dec 30, 2021

scottchiefbaker commented on Jun 5, 2023

raylu commented on Sep 20, 2023

anarcat commented on Feb 6, 2024

scottchiefbaker commented on Feb 6, 2024

scottchiefbaker commented on Feb 6, 2024

scottchiefbaker commented on Apr 22, 2024

scottchiefbaker commented on Oct 7, 2024

aijanai commented on Oct 7, 2024

scottchiefbaker commented on Oct 7, 2024

iwikus commented on Dec 10, 2024

scottchiefbaker commented on Dec 10, 2024

3 remaining items

scottchiefbaker commented on Feb 12, 2025

jubalh commented on Mar 12, 2025

scottchiefbaker commented on Apr 8, 2025

jubalh commented on Apr 9, 2025

scottchiefbaker commented on Apr 9, 2025

jubalh commented on Apr 9, 2025

UrbanDesimator commented on Dec 8, 2025

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Issue actions