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

[Bruce]

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.)
b