Re: A possibly clever idea...

[Bruce Steers <bsteers4@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks guys.

Yeah , i think it was not such a great idea anyway.
I cloned a fresh gambas-stable branch with --depth=1 (was 24rmb) and then
did all the compiling.
That upped the source to over 300mb and made an archive of the source about
200mb :(

Then many issues with make install failing.

Sigh  , thought i was on to a winner there, but it wasn't anything I'd
hoped it would be:(

You are right of course, packager install and repositories is the way to go.

GBwilly figured it out and successfully made a debian repo,
I looked and it all seemed very complicated.

I need someone to write a script that starts something like this...

#!/usr/bin/env bash
SourceDir="~/gambas-source"
OutputDir="~/gambas-packages"

# then code that creates the packages in the OutputDir from the SourceDir


Respects
BruceS




On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 at 14:42, Tim Dickson <dickson.tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> Just a note to echo Jussi's sentiments. It's nice to have a like-minded
> view :-)
> As a package maintainer for a number of packages for the distro I use, the
> number of times devs jump to the "latest" deps, and dev tools, making them
> minimum requirements can be annoying.
> especially when everything still works just fine with older versions. It
> almost reminds me of corporate (think Microsoft) development, where new
> stuff is added deliberately to make previous stuff
> not work. Open Source is not immune. the mess with gnome soup3 vs soup2
> where a new lib does not have the global support required, but software has
> to pick one version or another, or x11 and wayland to mention another
> similar platform mess. Having extra features but maintaining backward
> compatibility is a goal worth aiming for. The current trend of running
> every little bit of software in it's own vm/sandbox just makes for bloat
> and slow software. Not to say don't give it a go if it floats your boat. I
> do package testing on a vm, and if i was being good, I would use filesystem
> snapshots so I could roll back after each build. instead I use an
> overlayfs, just to make sure stuff is written in sane places, and don't
> bother using snapshots because i'm lazy and don't want to have to rebuild
> all the deps each time :-)
>
> Regards, Tim
>
> On 10/10/2024 02:09, Jussi Lahtinen wrote:
>
> I absolutely hate docker, flatpak, snap, appimage, etc.
> First people write unportable code, then instead of fixing the root issue,
> they make an absolutely huge bloated trash package that "overcomes" the
> portability issue and call it a solution. Just imagine the mess if everyone
> would choose to use those.
> Instead (not in any particular order):
> 1. Work towards updating the repos.
> 2. Avoid newest, experimental, etc features if possible.
> 3. Write code that is not system specific, but adheres to broader
> standards like POSIX.
> 4. Keep backward compatibility in mind when maintaining the software.
>
> I'm sure I forgot something, but you got the point.
>
>
> Jussi
>
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 2:40 AM Bruce Steers <bsteers4@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> I've just recently discovered docker and all it's possibilities.
>>
>> I have a theory that may get around the Gambas upgrading to latest
>> version.
>>
>> My theory is that on my online droplet I could set up docker images to
>> have all the supported ci systems set up with a Gambas source directory
>> that has mostly all the commands (reconf, configure and make) done but not
>> make install.
>>
>> Then all I require on my local system is to download the almost built
>> source code and get the dependencies needed to run make install.
>>
>> But what exactly is also likely to be needed?
>> I assume a lot of the dev files could be omitted but their binaries
>> packages still needed.
>> This issue assumes Gambas is already installed via package manager. If
>> you already have autotools install then you'll likely have all dependencies
>> anyway, and know what you're doing.
>>
>> Maybe a better question is not what's needed but what could I exclude to
>> just make install a mostly made source?
>>
>> What you think?
>> A crazy unworkable idea?
>>
>> Or could I be onto something?
>>
>> I'm gonna test the theory on my systems that have all dependencies anyway.
>>
>> Respects
>> BruceS
>>
>>
>
>
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
> Virus-free.www.avg.com
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
> <#m_3690910471269873783_m_2076129713910311618_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>