To be blunt, I struggled very hard to follow the text you wrote.. especially
true for the github bug report. I have done my best to understand what the
intended message was, but if I misunderstood then I apologize in advance.
On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:55:12 -0400
PICCORO McKAY Lenz <mckaygerhard@gmail.com> wrote:
> the insane amout of dependences make the work of this package a hard made..
>
> but a way to do its:
>
> 1) makde a package that only use the downloaded sources that ship all
> depends
This sounds like you're suggesting that we actually make use of content within
the vendor/ directories. If that's the case then we'll need to discuss DFSG in a
bit more depth because this will cause a clear violation.
In fact, I'm aware of sources within gogs/gitea that *DOES* *NOT* meet DFSG,
and some of it never will. If this is something you're not equally aware of, I
would encourage you to review the source code within a gitea/gogs release.
Each dependency needs to be individually packaged and reviewed for DFSG
standards. This work has revealed a lot of issues that have now been resolved
(in Gitea). Unfortunately, the author/owner of gogs has no interest in adopting
these changes. (details need not be repeated here)
> 2) in the way the depends get packaged in debian, so make it depends on gogs
I do not believe we will ever see Gogs made available within Debian, at least
not given present-day circumstances.
Regardless, it would be woefully inappropriate for a gitea package to depend on
a gogs package to find build dependencies. Besides, the two have different
dependencies (gitea requires more because of more features).
It could be considered fortunate that the packaging I've done for gitea
dependencies is available for gogs. If gogs ever becomes a suitable candidate
for inclusion in Debian, there will likely be a relatively complete set of
dependencies already in place.
> the other way its that do not make usage of thos depends pacakges that
> change too many in the time!
I didn't follow this at all.
On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 15:08:21 -0400
PICCORO McKAY Lenz <mckaygerhard@gmail.com> wrote:
> Debian packaging pretend to made a simple gogs virtual package provided by
> gitea..
>
> the gitea package roadmap pretend to separate from gogs, and are complety
> different..
I don't understand the usage of "pretend" in this context. The current
packaging I have been working on offers a gogs meta package that selects gitea.
This does not mean gitea is pretending to be gogs. It is a
relatively-compatible alternative.
I have not decided if I will keep this or not, but I consider worrying about it
to be about the lowest thing on my priorities list.
> gogs are focused on simplicity, no new features and only security fixeds
> gitea are focused on new features and changes too many ..
This is very much *not* the difference between the two. Gitea is a fork of gogs
that was created for entirely different reasons. Many of those reasons are why
gogs is not likely to ever exist in Debian repos.
>>> < re: your github bug report >
Conforming to Debian policy does not come later, it comes first. Until I have a
proper Debianized package, I will not release Gitea into Debian. I /do/
however, have a lot of progress made and only a few more new dependencies that
need to pass through NEW.
If you would like to help, check out the "(un)reproducible" column here:
https://udd.debian.org/dmd/?michael%40lustfield.net#versions
Those issues need to be resolved before introducing additional packages into
Debian. Additional dependencies are needed for gitea.
--
Michael Lustfield