On 2025-07-27 13:18, Jon Turney via Cygwin-apps wrote:
On 05/07/2025 15:16, Andrew Schulman via Cygwin-apps wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jul 2025 22:06:45 +0100, Jon Turney via Cygwin-apps wrote:
Having developers build executable packages locally and then upload them
doesn't really meet contemporary standards.
Given my 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.
Are there any Cygwin packages that aren't fully cygport-scriptable yet? For
example, are there any that rely on (free) software not yet available in
Cygwin for their builds? If so, then they'll need to keep being built locally
and manully uploaded.
So, to be clear, the answer is "yes" to the first part, and "no" to the second
part.
Instances of the first case that I'm aware of are:
* all(?) of Jari Aalto's packages use g-b-s for build and packaging.(This is
probably supportable with some sort of extension to declare the build-requires)
* mintty assembles the package archives itself and uploads those along with a
set of pre-written hint files. (I'm trying to work with Thomas to make this a
bit more like regular usage)
I don't think there are any instances of the second case, and such a thing would
probably be unacceptable as a package.
A number of packages have some failing test cases which prevent deploy, or hang
under CI requiring cancel: sometimes getting the tests to run is like playing
whack-a-mole, and some upstreams don't even respond to patch submissions,
although they are sometimes incorporated; others tell you not to hold your
breath, as it could be months. ;^>
--
Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada
La perfection est atteinte Perfection is achieved
non pas lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien à ajouter not when there is no more to add
mais lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien à retrancher but when there is no more to cut
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
