Jon Turney stated his druthers:
I’d just disable sftp package uploads right now, and make you all use
the janky „build service“ I hacked together in a few spare weekends.
and also listed some problems, including
* There are a couple of packagers using their own handcrafted
packaging rather than cygport.
which I’m one of.
I’ll be reaching out the those soon to discuss what can (reasonably)
be done to accommodate them.
Any questions/thoughts/concerns?
Thank you, I’d like to also present the concerns I responded to Jon here
for the discussion.
Glenn Strauss proposed
a procedure to request access to the (current) manual process.
which I’d like to vote for, and also request for myself.
Achim (ASSI) objected
... I'm not sure "contemporary standards" are actually an improvement.
which I strongly agree with, also about his mentioning of CI/build
systems under remote control.
Thanks, Achim, also for the reference to https://giveupgithub.org/ on
this occasion.
Also Achim urged about regarding sftp upload vs cygport build:
This is actually artifact storage / deployment, not build. Why do you
(want to?) conflate these, I think that makes the discussion more
complicated.
So my remarks, beginning with two well-known principles of system
development:
* “Separation of concerns”
* “Never touch a running system”
* As one of the package maintainers with “hand-crafted” builds, I’ve
hesitated so far to make a change to cygport just because that means
effort for me which I’d better spend on actual software.
On the other hand, in order to entice me to make the change to cygport,
I’d like to propose a small incentive in exchange, to relax the
packaging policy in one detail:
Packages that go without patches should be allowed to start at release
number 0 (as I did for a long time until I was nagged to increment).
Cheers
Thomas
