On Sun, 2018-12-30 at 23:57 +0100, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 10:48:41PM +0000, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > On 2018/12/29 15:44, Edward Lopez-Acosta wrote:
> > > Stuart,
> > >
> > > I am not sure I understand the question or the issues you refer to. Can you clarify for me so I can look more into it please?
> > >
> > > Are you also proposing the GitHub directives already provided are bad as well?
> > >
> > > On December 29, 2018 2:40:24 PM UTC, Stuart Henderson <stu@spacehopper.org> wrote:
> > > > On 2018/12/29 08:24, Edward Lopez-Acosta wrote:
> > > > > Any feedback for this?
> > > >
> > > > How is gitlab doing at keeping stable distfiles? If it's even worse
> > > > than
> > > > github (and I have a feeling it might be) then I wouldn't really want
> > > > to
> > > > encourage people using it directly as a source.
> >
> > See https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=151973450514279&w=2 for more about
> > the problem.
For better or for worse, GitHub, Gitlab, Bitbucket, et. al. are the New
World Order of software development. I don't think not supporting
directives for these platforms is going to solve anything; the
alternative is just "don't package those things". The problem at hand
is the lack of proper releases from upstream.
I was just looking at porting Lollypop[1] since it looks neat and I
believe we have all the dependencies. Even the big guys like GNOME seem
to be using $GIT_FRONTEND_OF_CHOICE to handle their releases nowadays.
At a certain point, we either need to start mirroring all of these
releases somewhere, or find a solution to work around the problems of
this style of software release.
I don't have a good solution to offer up, but I would suggest that
keeping GitLab (or other git hosting platform) support out of
bsd.port.mk just shuffles the problem under the rug, and makes it
harder for people to write ports for software hosted there.
I would further cite GitLab issue 38830[2] in support of merging
Edward's changes; this appears to be something that the GitLab folks
are aware of and have responded to in the past. In particular, GitLab
MR 17225[3] specifically adds support for `project-ref.ext` style
tarballs to support packaging.
Perhaps it would be constructive to reach out to the GitLab development
team directly to see if their archive generations and handling is
compatible with the requirements of the OpenBSD ports tree?
~ Charles
1 - https://wiki.gnome.org/Apps/Lollypop
2 - https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/38830
3 - https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/merge_requests/17225
No comments:
Post a Comment