[Gambas-user] Could gitlab-ci + package builder = easy install?
bsteers4 at gmail.com
Mon Jan 4 15:08:16 CET 2021
On Sun, 3 Jan 2021 at 23:19, Bruce <adamnt42 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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?
I think the autotools method is much more bloated than the PPA method .
compiling needs loads more dependencies than just installing and takes a
lot longer too.
Plus the huge downside of not having gambas listed as installed by the OS's
Initially I'm not thinking of ANY distro, just the ones supported in the
I do not know how the daily builds are made for ubuntu but can't help think
for each distro there must be a similar method can be used, Just use the
PPA code and adapt per distro?
> 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).
yes i know some files are not really files but symlinks but still nothing a
small bash script could not create.
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?
Mostly though it's 3 main things, the gb* files in /usr/bin plus
/usr/share/gambas3 and /usr/lib/gambas3.
I know there a little more to it but mostly it's just that.
And we'd still have the same problem with "package dependancies" vs
> "library dependancies".
Probably wouldn't take much to add another file similar to gitlab-ci.yml
but one that listed dependencies for just running gambas not compiling it.
> (Just some thoughts, be an interesting thing to see though.)
I'd sure like to see it , it's all a bit beyond me though, seems to me
gambas is a bit restricted in it's ability to "simply" upgrade to latest
version (restricted by the distro repositories)
And sure you and I know and can easily use the autotools method but for
some the mere mention of the word "compile" frightens people off.
I'm sure we must have the combined knowledge and ability here to make our
own install/upgrade possible.
I get the feeling you and I share a view that gambas should be for linux
what vb is for window$.
But for this i think the thinking about gambas needs to diverge slightly,
It needs to be looked at in 2 ways, the IDE for coders and the runtimes for
users. And the users need complete simplicity to upgrade to the latest
runtimes so our programs can work for all, not just people with the ability
to upgrade as it is now.
Kinda how VB works, i remember having to download the latest vb runtimes
for various programs I used long before i ever downloaded the vb6 (god I'm
old lol) development environment and got into programming.
But that's a difference with VB, it's got it's eye on the end users not
just the programmers, I'm not so sure gambas has the same ethos.
It's a thought i think worth considering for the gambas team.
Me , as a developer who wants to write software for all to use, has found
an issue in wanting to do that. Upgrading is just beyond some people.
Sadly I'm a bit of a dreamer, I see things simply before I see how
outrageously complicated it is ;)
Could be a task worth taking on though.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the User