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:
> 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,
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)
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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
--
Michael Lustfield