Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Provide debian binaries #278

Closed
avivace opened this issue May 21, 2018 · 18 comments
Closed

Provide debian binaries #278

avivace opened this issue May 21, 2018 · 18 comments
Labels
builds This affects the build process or release artifacts enhancement Typically new features; lesser priority than bugs meta This isn't related to the tools directly: repo organization, maintainership...

Comments

@avivace
Copy link
Sponsor Member

avivace commented May 21, 2018

If this is an appreciated contribution, I'd like to work on providing debian binaries for debian-based systems.

As standalone deb files and/or with a repository offering the last version.

@AntonioND
Copy link
Member

Sure, go for it. What exactly do you plan to add to the repository, just an extra folder?

@AntonioND AntonioND added the enhancement Typically new features; lesser priority than bugs label May 21, 2018
@avivace
Copy link
Sponsor Member Author

avivace commented May 23, 2018

I think that a separate repo containing the files for the build would be better, so I won't fill the commit history with tests and debian rules files.

Ideally, I could use a separate branch too.

@AntonioND
Copy link
Member

Well, in principle I wouldn't mind having the rules in the master branch. After all, many projects have folders just to build it for different platforms. Of course, if someone else wants to add rules for other distros, that would be fine, too.

@BenHetherington
Copy link
Contributor

Sounds like a nice idea! I personally think that the GitHub releases page is really the place for this, but I wouldn't mind the binaries being in the main repo if that's easier (e.g. to submit pull requests for, or to clone from the command line).

@AntonioND
Copy link
Member

I think it's just easier to have the package generation files in the master branch. We could have a dist/debian folder with the needed files, for example. If someone wanted to add scripts for other distros, they could be added to.

Of course, I'm not talking about the final .deb file, just the files needed to generate it.

@rtandy
Copy link

rtandy commented Jul 25, 2019

Not sure if this is still wanted. I created Debian packaging of rgbds for my own use: https://github.com/rtandy/pkg-rgbds. If there is enough interest, I'd be willing to work on pushing that into Debian itself (and from there into derivatives e.g. Ubuntu).

@ISSOtm
Copy link
Member

ISSOtm commented Apr 4, 2020

What's your status on this, @rtandy @avivace?

@rtandy
Copy link

rtandy commented Apr 4, 2020

Unfortunately I put this in one of my backlogs and then ended up never working on it again. It's still something I'm interested in, but don't treat me as a blocker to anyone else working on it. I would absolutely be willing to review or co-maintain any packaging work aimed at submission to Debian.

@ISSOtm ISSOtm added the meta This isn't related to the tools directly: repo organization, maintainership... label Dec 12, 2020
@ISSOtm
Copy link
Member

ISSOtm commented Mar 11, 2021

Alea jacta est, lol https://mentors.debian.net/package/rgbds/

I also put my attempt on GitHub, fwiw.

@rtandy
Copy link

rtandy commented Mar 12, 2021 via email

@ISSOtm
Copy link
Member

ISSOtm commented Mar 12, 2021

Thank you very much! If it can help with the sponsoring process, that'd be a good start.

I asked on IRC, and there's essentially no way that it'll make it into bullseye (they should be hitting the hard-freeze today, and are already in the soft-freeze), but it's still worth getting done, imo.

@ISSOtm
Copy link
Member

ISSOtm commented Apr 19, 2021

There's been no significant updates from this, but the overall reactions I got from the Debian people I interacted with was "if you're not using Debian, you shouldn't propose a Debian package". So while I'd love to provide better support (and despite setting up a Debian chroot just for this), it seems that furthering this must be done by a regular Debian user.

Hence: if you're a Debian user, and wish for RGBDS to be packaged for your distro, please hmu (either reply to this issue, or use the contact info near the top of the README).

@pinobatch
Copy link
Member

pinobatch commented Apr 19, 2021

My main GB dev PC runs Xubuntu. I used to regularly use Debian stable on a different PC until a couple weeks ago. The Ubuntu docs seem to imply that the easiest way to get a package into Ubuntu is to get it into Debian first. From Ubuntu Packaging Guide > Packaging New Software:

There are a number of paths that a package can take to enter Ubuntu. In most cases, going through Debian first can be the best path. This way ensures that your package will reach the largest number of users as it will be available in not just Debian and Ubuntu but all of their derivatives as well. Here are some useful links for submitting new packages to Debian: [links to Debian Mentors FAQ and WNPP]

What did the people you interacted with think of Ubuntu pushing people their way?

@avivace
Copy link
Sponsor Member Author

avivace commented Apr 19, 2021

There's been no significant updates from this, but the overall reactions I got from the Debian people I interacted with was "if you're not using Debian, you shouldn't propose a Debian package". So while I'd love to provide better support (and despite setting up a Debian chroot just for this), it seems that furthering this must be done by a regular Debian user.

Hence: if you're a Debian user, and wish for RGBDS to be packaged for your distro, please hmu (either reply to this issue, or use the contact info near the top of the README).

Debian user and I'd love to help with the packaging - but still, I have little time for this. I'll update you when I can make some space in my schedule. In mean time, anyone else checking these two flags are welcome to contact us/ join Discord to coordinate efforts

@ISSOtm ISSOtm pinned this issue Apr 20, 2021
@pinobatch
Copy link
Member

Toward this end, I filed #1160 to allow building a slice of the regression test suite that conforms to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. A user asked in a tongue-in-cheek reply why I was so focused on RGBDS as a means to the end of packaging SameBoy.

Mostly it's that SameBoy and compelling Free games that build-depend on RGBDS might serve to convince sponsors that SM83 support in Binutils isn't quite enough. I've noticed that the Debian project discourages requesting redundant software to perform the same task as an existing package. From "Introduction for maintainers: How will my package get into Debian?":

Debian is a distribution, not a general purpose repository. Many of us do not believe every piece of free software necessarily belongs in Debian. Please do not treat Debian as a platform to advertise your own software, unless there is some real request for it.

@ISSOtm
Copy link
Member

ISSOtm commented Aug 20, 2023

I'd argue that RGBDS stands out on its own despite any Binutils SM83 support, for the same reason that nasm/yasm are included despite much more extensive x86 support in Binutils. More arguments in that regard are of course useful, though I'm not sure if being a build-dep of SameBoy would be worth much if Debian doesn't want to distribute SameBoy in the first place.

@Rangi42 Rangi42 added the builds This affects the build process or release artifacts label Dec 8, 2023
@ISSOtm
Copy link
Member

ISSOtm commented Dec 17, 2023

Update: the current effort is https://mentors.debian.net/package/rgbds/, borne by @robbi-blechdose at https://github.com/Robbi-Blechdose/rgbds-deb/tree/debian

@avivace
Copy link
Sponsor Member Author

avivace commented Feb 8, 2024

Closing this as we moved @robbi-blechdose work to https://github.com/gbdev/rgbds-deb

@avivace avivace closed this as completed Feb 8, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
builds This affects the build process or release artifacts enhancement Typically new features; lesser priority than bugs meta This isn't related to the tools directly: repo organization, maintainership...
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

7 participants