Refactor linux autobuild #2451
Refactor linux autobuild #2451
Conversation
38d8250 to
f07e040
Compare
b7a5892 to
31049ea
Compare
fd0cf18 to
4ffa613
Compare
5e15e19 to
2256711
Compare
|
Sorry for the development noise here. Will set it to draft. |
1187a81 to
40ca392
Compare
hoffie
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good to me now. Two open questions:
- Flatpak is removed because... there's noone on the team maintaining it / using it to publish updates?
- I think the non-autobuild debian logic removal is fine. Maybe still ping the official package maintainer and ask about it to be sure? (mirabilos)
Exactly. Although I have access to the flatpak repo (you probably also have) it's not official. Therefore I don't think it makes sense having it here and on the repo of flatpak. |
I remember him saying that debian uses its own logic anyways. @mirabilos could you please comment if modifying the debian folder does any harm for you? Probably the debian build in their repo is built different anyway. |
|
ann0see dixit:
***@***.*** could you please comment if modifying the debian folder does
***@***.*** harm for you? Probably the debian build in their repo is built
***@***.*** anyway.
The extraction mechanism for upstream sources in Debian
immediately removes any top-level debian subdirectory,
if extant, so we can add the Debian packaging in that place.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
Support mksh as /bin/sh and RoQA dash NOW!
‣ src:bash (406 (433) bugs: 0 RC, 275 (295) I&N, 131 (138) M&W, 0 F&P) + 208
‣ src:dash (91 (106) bugs: 0 RC, 51 (55) I&N, 40 (51) M&W, 0 F&P) + 63 ubu
‣ src:mksh (1 bug: 0 RC, 0 I&N, 1 M&W, 0 F&P)
dash has two RC bugs they just closed because they don’t care about quality…
|
|
Ok. So you're basically not dependent on anything this PR is doing. |
|
@hoffie I installed the resulting deb and it seemed to work fine. However the text description in Gnome software seemed wring (but that's not important at all) |
|
Can I ask for a quick feature request as part of this? Can you add a Jamulus Server .desktop file to the Linux .deb? Or doesn't it fit easily here? |
In what way?
I think it'd be good to keep "Refactor" PRs to be exactly that. Refactoring. :) |
|
Peter L Jones dixit:
Jamulus Server .desktop file
Why would you even install the headless server if you have
a system that’s using .desktop files in the first place?
Just install the full package there… headless is just a hack
to avoid extra dependencies, which those systems that read
.desktop files would usually have already anyway.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
22:59⎜<Vutral> glaub ich termkit is kompliziert | glabe nicht das man
damit schneller arbeitet | reizüberflutung │ wie windows │ alles evil
zuviel bilder │ wie ein spiel | 23:00⎜<Vutral> die meisten raffen auch
nicht mehr von windows | 23:01⎜<Vutral> bilderbücher sind ja auch nich
wirklich verbreitet als erwachsenen literatur ‣ who needs GUIs thus?
|
Where did I mention headless server? |
The gnome software output didn’t say what is written as description but something else sounding like a description. I don’t know exactly what it said. |
|
Ok. See
I assume it's from the Debian repository, not the deb file |
I thought @jujudusud did that once (and somehow it disappeared). Could you please open a feature request on that? |
This seems to match the man page: https://manpages.debian.org/testing/jamulus/Jamulus.1.en.html
I agree it should be a separate issue. The file is still there, btw, it's just missing from |
|
@pljones could you please review this PR? I think we should merge it soon (to enable hoffie starting to work on the CI refactoring) |
Short description of changes
Moves some files around to be consistent with Windows/Android build
Removes unneeded files
Changelog entry might need to be split.
Context: Fixes an issue?
Fixes: #2430
Does this change need documentation? What needs to be documented and how?
Status of this Pull Request
Finished
What is missing until this pull request can be merged?
Needs a second review
Checklist