[Gambas-user] Could gitlab-ci + package builder = easy install?

Bruce adamnt42 at gmail.com
Mon Jan 4 00:18:32 CET 2021

On 4/1/21 9:15 am, Bruce Steers wrote:
> There's a thought been mulling around in my head.
> We have 2 things already happening...
> gitlab-ci and how it works making a temporary system and compiling/building
> and installing complete gambas3 for various distros.
> We also have packager routines built into gambas that can create an
> installable .deb/.rpm/etc package from a project for each distro supported
> in the CI.
> So can these 2 things not somehow be bought together?
> My thinking is the CI could be made to make a package file of gambas it
> just compiled for its distro and copying the file somewhere before the
> runner finishes.
> Seems like it's something sooo close to be able to happen.
> Do the folks who made the packaging code think this is possible to adapt
> the code to package gambas itself?
> Ultimate aim here is to make upgrading much simpler for various distros.
> No need for compile, no need for PPA , just download an auto-created
> package file and double click.
> If it's a crap ton of coding involved then i would understand a reluctance
> but i can't help think there is already code doing similar things so will
> it be that massive a task?
> Just a thought.
> All the best :)
> BruceS
> ----[ http://gambaswiki.org/wiki/doc/netiquette ]----

Can the IDE package builder cope with the C/C+ components?
What's so hard about the autotools incantaion anyway? I think that if 
problems arode then you'd just have the same problems when attempting 
the same thing via a package?
Would you need to be able to build a spec file for "any" disdtro (rather 
than the known package types?

Don't forget that the IDE packager is not creating a "real" program 
package. It just makes a "set of files" package that just get copied to 
various places. The project "executable" that is installed is just a 
gambas whatsy-code file (can't think of the proper name).

Gambas itself, on the other hand, is prescribed as a set of packages 
that would need to be installed by hand (or whatever package manager. 
Doesn't this mean you would be replacing a three step process with a 
four or five step process?

And we'd still have the same problem with "package dependancies" vs 
"library dependancies".

(Just some thoughts, be an interesting thing to see though.)

More information about the User mailing list