Debian Bug report logs - #792101
ITP: gitea -- A painless self-hosted git service.

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: John Hackett <john+debian@shockingly.eu>

To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: ITP: gogs -- Gogs is a self hosted service aiming to provide a similar set of features to gitlab and github.

Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 10:55:00 +0100

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: John Hackett <john+debian@shockingly.eu>

* Package name    : gogs
  Version         : 0.6.1
  Upstream Author : lunny@gitea.io
* URL             : https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea
* License         : MIT
  Programming Lang: Golang
  Description     : Gogs is a self hosted service aiming to provide a similar set of features to gitlab and github.

Message #10 received at 792101-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bart Martens <bartm@quantz.debian.org>

To: 792101-done@bugs.debian.org

Subject: closing ITP: gogs -- Gogs is a self hosted service aiming to provide a similar set of features to gitlab and github.

Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 16:20:23 +0000

Please retitle bug 780606 from RFP to ITP and set yourself as the owner.

Message #15 received at 792101@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Benjamin Drung <benjamin.drung@profitbricks.com>

To: John Hackett <john+debian@shockingly.eu>, 792101@bugs.debian.org

Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#792101: ITP: gogs -- Gogs is a self hosted service aiming to provide a similar set of features to gitlab and github.

Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 16:38:07 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Am Samstag, den 11.07.2015, 10:55 +0100 schrieb John Hackett:
> * Package name    : gogs
> * URL             : https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea

Your URL points to gitea instead of gogs. Do you want to package gogs or
gitea. Please fix the URL in the former case or rename the package in
the latter case.

-- 
Benjamin Drung
System Developer
Debian & Ubuntu Developer

ProfitBricks GmbH
Greifswalder Str. 207
D - 10405 Berlin

Email: benjamin.drung@profitbricks.com
URL:  http://www.profitbricks.com

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin.
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 125506B.
Geschäftsführer: Andreas Gauger, Achim Weiss.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #28 received at 792101@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bernd Zeimetz <b.zeimetz@conova.com>

To: <792101@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: reopening - setting to RFP

Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 13:58:20 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Homepage: https://gogs.io/
Code is located at https://github.com/gogits/gogs

Please package the original version, not some random fork.


-- 
Mit freundlichen Grüßen


Bernd Zeimetz
Systems Engineer
Debian Developer

conova communications GmbH
Web    | http://www.conova.com/
E-Mail | b.zeimetz@conova.com

Zentrale Salzburg
Karolingerstraße 36A
5020 Salzburg

Tel | +43 (0) 662 22 00 - 313
Fax | +43 (0) 662 22 00 - 209

Es gelten die Allgemeinen Geschäftsbedingungen der
conova communications GmbH, http://www.conova.com/de/agb/

[smime.p7s (application/x-pkcs7-signature, attachment)]

Message #37 received at 792101@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Michael Lustfield <michael@lustfield.net>

To: 792101@bugs.debian.org

Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, control@bugs.debian.org

Subject: ITP: gogs -- self hosted git service

Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 23:06:29 -0500

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

retitle 792101 ITP: gogs -- A painless self-hosted Git service.
owner 792101 !
thanks

Updated Details:

* Package name    : gogs
  Version         : 0.9.97
  Upstream Author : The Gogs Authors
* URL             : https://github.com/gogits/gogs
* License         : MIT
  Homepage        : https://gogs.io/
  Programming Lang: Golang
  Description     : A painless self-hosted Git service.
  .
  Gogs is a self-hosted service aiming to provide a similar set of features to
  gitlab and github while remaining lightweight and easy.

I intend to package gogs. I have reached out to the gogs developers to make
them aware of this intention and have offered to discuss what that may mean for
them.

Although upstream makes frequent releases, these seem to rarely have security
fixes so I don't anticipate any significant concerns backporting security
issues. (feel free to double check me!)

-- 
Michael Lustfield

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #46 received at 792101@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "georg@riseup.net" <georg@riseup.net>

To: 792101@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: ITP: gogs -- self hosted git service

Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 13:39:12 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi Michael,

By changing the title of this bug to ITP and recording yourself as the
owner, can one assume you're packaging gogs within Debian?
If so, any ETA on this?

Thanks for your work and all the best,
Georg

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #51 received at 792101@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Michael Lustfield <michael@lustfield.net>

To: "georg@riseup.net" <georg@riseup.net>, 792101@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#792101: ITP: gogs -- self hosted git service

Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 23:21:08 -0500

On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 6:39 AM, georg@riseup.net <georg@riseup.net> wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> By changing the title of this bug to ITP and recording yourself as the
> owner, can one assume you're packaging gogs within Debian?

Yup, that's exactly what that's meant to indicate.

> If so, any ETA on this?

Nope! Time has been missing, but that tide seems to be receding and
I'm shooting for "sooner than later" but can't provide a whole lot
past that right now.

Message #56 received at 792101@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Michael Lustfield <michael@lustfield.net>

To: 792101@bugs.debian.org

Subject: On Hold

Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 01:18:09 -0500

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Packaging Gogs needs to be put on hold. It requires at least one additional
package find its way into Debian.

-- 
Michael Lustfield

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #61 received at 792101@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Michael Lustfield <michael@lustfield.net>

To: 792101@bugs.debian.org

Subject: On Extra Hold

Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 12:19:32 -0500

Turns out, gogs has 22 build dependencies that are not yet packaged in Debian.
All of those need to be addressed first. This is going to take a while. :(

-- 
Michael Lustfield

Message #66 received at 792101@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Michael Lustfield <michael@lustfield.net>

To: 792101@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Dependency Hell

Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 00:07:23 -0500

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Well, my fellow gogs-enthusiasts. I've come up with an initial list of build
dependencies that would be required before going after including gogs in
debian.

With this list... I'm no longer certain that gogs /should/ be included in
Debian. I don't know what's considered normal when it comes to golang, but this
looks to me to be excessively bad design.


== GOGS DEPENDENCY TREE (unfinished and unrefined) ==

golang-gopkg-gomail.v2-dev
        Not Checked
golang-gopkg-ldap.v2-dev
        Not Checked
golang-gopkg-editorconfig-editorconfig-core-go.v1-dev
        Not Checked
golang-github-gogits-chardet-dev
        golang-github-saintfish-chardet-dev
golang-github-unknwon-paginater-dev
golang-github-gogits-cron-dev
golang-github-unknwon-cae-dev
        [[ CYCLICAL: golang-github-unknwon-cae-dev ]]
golang-github-sergi-go-diff-dev
        golang-github-stretchrcom-testify-dev
golang-github-issue9-identicon-dev
        golang-github-issue9-assert-dev
golang-github-microcosm-cc-bluemonday-dev
golang-github-nfnt-resize-dev
golang-github-strk-go-libravatar-dev
[[ dup: golang-github-unknwon-i18n-dev ]]
golang-github-go-macaron-csrf-dev
golang-github-go-macaron-toolbox-dev
golang-github-gogits-go-gogs-client-dev
golang-github-go-macaron-i18n-dev
        golang-github-unknwon-i18n-dev
golang-github-gogits-git-module-dev
        [[ dup: golang-github-mcuadros-go-version-dev ]]
golang-github-mcuadros-go-version-dev
golang-github-go-macaron-captcha-dev
        golang-github-go-macaron-cache-dev
                [[ dup: golang-github-siddontang-ledisdb-dev ]]
                golang-github-lunny-nodb-dev
                        [[ dup: golang-github-lunny-log-dev ]]
                        [[ dup: golang-github-syndtr-goleveldb-dev ]]
                        [[ dup: golang-github-siddontang-go-snappy-dev ]]
golang-github-jaytaylor-html2text-dev
golang-github-go-macaron-cache-dev
        golang-github-siddontang-ledisdb-dev
                golang-github-ugorji-go-dev
                [[ dup: golang-github-syndtr-goleveldb-dev ]]
                golang-github-siddontang-go-dev
                golang-github-siddontang-rdb-dev
                        golang-github-cupcake-rdb-dev
                                ???
				(this one wants something from launchpad.net)
                golang-github-edsrzf-mmap-go-dev
                golang-github-siddontang-goredis-dev
                        golang-github-alicebob-miniredis-dev
                                golang-github-bsm-redeo-dev
                                        [[ dup: golang-github-onsi-ginkgo-dev ]]
                                        [[ dup: golang-github-onsi-gomega-dev ]]
        golang-github-lunny-nodb-dev
                golang-github-lunny-log-dev
                golang-github-siddontang-go-snappy-dev
                golang-github-syndtr-goleveldb-dev
                        golang-github-onsi-ginkgo-dev
                                [[ CIRCULAR: golang-github-onsi-gomega-dev ]]
                        golang-github-onsi-gomega-dev
                                [[ CIRCULAR: golang-github-onsi-ginkgo-dev ]]
                                golang-github-golang-protobuf-dev
== DONE ==

-- 
Michael Lustfield

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #71 received at 792101@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Michael Lustfield <michael@lustfield.net>

To: 792101@bugs.debian.org

Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 12:46:32 -0600

Control: retitle -1 ITP: gitea -- A painless self-hosted git service.

New URL: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea
New package name: gitea
Provides: gogs


Rationale:

While slowly working through this lovely dependency mess, I've been learning
how to build better packages. In doing so, I've been attempting to work with
the gogs author to address some concerns. My hope was to find simple solutions
instead of having to get clever and maintain a mess. The author was quick to
respond when presented with a compliment but fell completely silent otherwise.

After looking through the PR/issue queue, I noticed a problem when it comes to
working with any attempt at a community. I noticed an unnerving trend of not
responding in any way to concerns/complains. I saw some PR's ignored for months
and then closed because they no longer merged cleanly.


The primary fork of gogs is gitea which has quickly built a strong community.

Their View: https://blog.gitea.io/2016/12/welcome-to-gitea/

After everything I've seen, I'm inclined to agree. Gitea appears to have a very
active community that watches their ancestor's commits closely. I've been given
the impression coordinated security releases would be possible with the gitea
"owners" where I would be hesitant to attempt involving the gogs owner.


Because gitea keeps watch of gogs and pulls changes in as needed, I feel it
would sensible to let the gitea provide gogs as a virtual package selecting
gitea. In the event someone wanted to maintain a vanilla gogs, I would be more
than happy to drop that from the packaging, but would otherwise prefer it as a
convenience to new users.

I still have a *lot* of work to do on the dependencies, so lots of room for
discussion if anyone is interested.
-- 
Michael Lustfield

Message #78 received at 792101@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Michael Lustfield <michael@lustfield.net>

To: 792101@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Progress Report

Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 22:36:16 -0800

There are about 30 more ITPs to fill out and close. I'm sure I'll find more
missed dependencies while working through them, but we're getting closer. :)
-- 
Michael Lustfield

Message #89 received at 792101@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Michael Lustfield <michael@lustfield.net>

To: 792101@bugs.debian.org

Subject: still going...

Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 15:21:17 -0500

Work in Progress: https://github.com/MTecknology/gitea-wip

-- 
Michael Lustfield

Message #112 received at 792101@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Michael Lustfield <michael@lustfield.net>

To: 792101@bugs.debian.org

Subject: breaking the silence

Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 10:36:03 -0500

Woohoo! We have testing back open for updates and next week I have some time
available to get back to get back at this behemoth!

I'm still looking for help from anyone interested! My biggest challenge at the
moment is javascript dependencies.

-- 
Michael Lustfield

Message #125 received at 792101@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: PICCORO McKAY Lenz <mckaygerhard@gmail.com>

To: 792101@bugs.debian.org

Subject: gitea ITS NOT GOGS alias or clone

Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 15:08:21 -0400

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

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..

gogs are focused on simplicity, no new features and only security fixeds
gitea are focused on new features and changes too many ..

the gitea package can be a pain to mantain in debian...

Lenz McKAY Gerardo (PICCORO)
http://qgqlochekone.blogspot.com

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #130 received at 792101@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Michael Lustfield <michael@lustfield.net>

To: PICCORO McKAY Lenz <mckaygerhard@gmail.com>

Cc: 780606@bugs.debian.org, 792101@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug# [...]

Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 17:31:02 -0700

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

Message #135 received at 792101@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: PICCORO McKAY Lenz <mckaygerhard@gmail.com>

To: Michael Lustfield <michael@lustfield.net>

Cc: 780606@bugs.debian.org, 792101@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug# [...]

Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 13:49:31 -0400

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

2017-09-19 20:31 GMT-04:00 Michael Lustfield <michael@lustfield.net>:

> 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.
>
sorry for my english and you indestand almost all

> 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,
>
right but only in a part.. i mean made the package and progressl
Make the package, and progressively go removing or adding dependencies and
objects according to what is going to work, for example in the case of
dependency: if today xxx.yyy is provided then in the already made gogs
package removing the xxx.yyy reference build in source, about the DFSG can
be check as being used it, due some maybe drop important funtionality

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)
>
I also noted that gitea solved some problems inherints from gogs, but i
also noted that on every new releaqse as they introduced fixeds, same
amount of issues are newer due new features or bigfixeds itself

this can be a problem.., the differences between gogs and gitea are more
deep in development model but in funtionallity are pretty same..


> > 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.
>
gogs and gitea used a specific commits of that depends.. and taking in
consideration that packages on debian are "too older or too newer" respect
the necesary..
so then, maybe we need a special packages mades for those? sound like a
duplication of work, but some examples maybe are owncloud and roundcube


> 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 dont think this would be a good idea. its better a good made separation..
no relation


> 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.
>
i already know about the problem that raised the fork of gitea.. but gitea
are not a separate project different rom gogs.. the differences between
funtionalities are few, but in development are too many...


> 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.
>
as i mention, to se real progress and funtionality (and if some ot the
current depends are not fit) we suggest Make the package, and progressively
go removing or adding dependencies and objects according to what is going
to work, for example in the case of dependency: if today xxx.yyy is
provided then in the already made gogs package removing the xxx.yyy
reference build in source, about the DFSG can be check as being used it,
due some maybe drop important funtionality
so you can made all of then in a personal repository in alliot or in
opensuse build service--


> If you would like to help, check out the "(un)reproducible" column here:
>     https://udd.debian.org/dmd/?michael%40lustfield.net#versions

the complete log need DH_VERVOSE=1 due the test fail does not have a good
trace... the debug output only had pointer addresses, i cannot setup better
trace..

seems are realted to 64 bit addresses, so i disable the checks and try to
reproduce with the included in gogs, and does not able to reproduce.. due
in the sources only 64 bit adreses are used--

take in consideration that amount of go developer used 64bit by default, so
more i386 setups are need, but current debian does not fit my need on i385
(too many req) so i used squeeze and in this setup are running well gogs..
gitea does not!


> --
> Michael Lustfield
>

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #140 received at 792101@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: PICCORO McKAY Lenz <mckaygerhard@gmail.com>

To: Michael Lustfield <michael@lustfield.net>

Cc: 780606@bugs.debian.org, 792101@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug# [...]

Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 13:56:31 -0400

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

also the behaviour explained at the end of my previous mail* was apllied
perfectly to the KDE4 and KDE3 packages! in the past... for squeeze, etch
and sarge*

if as progress of depends and policy analisis progress, users like me we
can test in the way aditions or remotions was made over the main objetiv,
the gitea/gogs package..

Lenz McKAY Gerardo (PICCORO)
http://qgqlochekone.blogspot.com

2017-09-20 13:49 GMT-04:00 PICCORO McKAY Lenz <mckaygerhard@gmail.com>:

> 2017-09-19 20:31 GMT-04:00 Michael Lustfield <michael@lustfield.net>:
>
>> 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.
>>
> sorry for my english and you indestand almost all
>
>> 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,
>>
> right but only in a part.. i mean made the package and progressl
> Make the package, and progressively go removing or adding dependencies and
> objects according to what is going to work, for example in the case of
> dependency: if today xxx.yyy is provided then in the already made gogs
> package removing the xxx.yyy reference build in source, about the DFSG can
> be check as being used it, due some maybe drop important funtionality
>
> 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)
>>
> I also noted that gitea solved some problems inherints from gogs, but i
> also noted that on every new releaqse as they introduced fixeds, same
> amount of issues are newer due new features or bigfixeds itself
>
> this can be a problem.., the differences between gogs and gitea are more
> deep in development model but in funtionallity are pretty same..
>
>
>> > 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.
>>
> gogs and gitea used a specific commits of that depends.. and taking in
> consideration that packages on debian are "too older or too newer" respect
> the necesary..
> so then, maybe we need a special packages mades for those? sound like a
> duplication of work, but some examples maybe are owncloud and roundcube
>
>
>> 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 dont think this would be a good idea. its better a good made
> separation.. no relation
>
>
> > 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.
>>
> i already know about the problem that raised the fork of gitea.. but gitea
> are not a separate project different rom gogs.. the differences between
> funtionalities are few, but in development are too many...
>
>
>> 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.
>>
> as i mention, to se real progress and funtionality (and if some ot the
> current depends are not fit) we suggest Make the package, and progressively
> go removing or adding dependencies and objects according to what is going
> to work, for example in the case of dependency: if today xxx.yyy is
> provided then in the already made gogs package removing the xxx.yyy
> reference build in source, about the DFSG can be check as being used it,
> due some maybe drop important funtionality
> so you can made all of then in a personal repository in alliot or in
> opensuse build service--
>
>
>> If you would like to help, check out the "(un)reproducible" column here:
>>     https://udd.debian.org/dmd/?michael%40lustfield.net#versions
>
> the complete log need DH_VERVOSE=1 due the test fail does not have a good
> trace... the debug output only had pointer addresses, i cannot setup better
> trace..
>
> seems are realted to 64 bit addresses, so i disable the checks and try to
> reproduce with the included in gogs, and does not able to reproduce.. due
> in the sources only 64 bit adreses are used--
>
> take in consideration that amount of go developer used 64bit by default,
> so more i386 setups are need, but current debian does not fit my need on
> i385 (too many req) so i used squeeze and in this setup are running well
> gogs.. gitea does not!
>
>
>> --
>> Michael Lustfield
>>
>
>

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #145 received at 792101@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Michael Lustfield <michael@lustfield.net>

To: 792101@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Finally, an unusable demo

Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 22:08:22 -0500

It seems I'm still the only person interested in working on gitea packaging.
Bummer, I almost got hopeful once or twice.

There are a lot of things still pending, a few packages that will be an
exceptional time sink, as well as other obvious packaging flaws, and a weird
working directory issue within gitea.

Despite the package being unsuitable for release, I popped up a repository to
make my current work available for playing with.


Work In Progress (Demo):
    https://people.debian.org/~mtecknology/ppa/README

-- 
Michael Lustfield

Message #150 received at 792101@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Raoul <raoulb@bluewin.ch>

To: 792101@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Finally, an unusable demo

Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 01:28:02 +0100

> It seems I'm still the only person interested in working on gitea
> packaging.

Of course not, I'm very interested to get a gitea package in Debian.
Unfortunately I can not really help you with the technical issues.

I closely followed your WIP status page at [1] until it disappeared
a few days ago.

[1] https://github.com/MTecknology/gitea-wip/blob/master/work_in_progress

> Despite the package being unsuitable for release, I popped up a repository to
> make my current work available for playing with.

Thanks. I shall test this as soon as I find the time.

Message #155 received at 792101@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Michael Lustfield <michael@lustfield.net>

To: 792101@bugs.debian.org

Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 20:28:38 -0600

For anyone interested, I hit a pretty sizeable roadblock with javascript
packaging. I haven't been able to find anyone that can help me deal with these
issues so gitea packaging is dropping pretty low on my priorities list.

If anyone wants to help and knows anything about javascript packaging, I would
love (and very much need) some help.

-- 
Michael Lustfield

Message #156 received at 780606-close@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Michael Lustfield <michael@lustfield.net>

To: 780606-close@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Bug#780606: fixed in gitea 1.3.2+dfsg-1

Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 22:00:14 +0000

Source: gitea
Source-Version: 1.3.2+dfsg-1

We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
gitea, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive.

A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.  If you
have further comments please address them to 780606@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Michael Lustfield <michael@lustfield.net> (supplier of updated gitea package)

(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Format: 1.8
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 02:01:23 -0500
Source: gitea
Binary: gitea gitea-common golang-code.gitea-gitea-dev
Architecture: source all amd64
Version: 1.3.2+dfsg-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Debian Go Packaging Team <pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>
Changed-By: Michael Lustfield <michael@lustfield.net>
Description:
 gitea      - Painless self-hosted git service
 gitea-common - Painless self-hosted git service - common files
 golang-code.gitea-gitea-dev - Painless self-hosted git service -- source
Closes: 780606 792101
Changes:
 gitea (1.3.2+dfsg-1) unstable; urgency=medium
 .
   * Initial release (Closes: #780606, #792101)
Checksums-Sha1:
 2f82a678a1b661ca71c06ddfe9f84cceed382583 6499 gitea_1.3.2+dfsg-1.dsc
 dda70fca01df1ef7d939fc8a9b777030b3bdf16d 1186848 gitea_1.3.2+dfsg.orig.tar.xz
 bda4b2b05afebc987132e49362122e6c80b0bfa0 1016532 gitea_1.3.2+dfsg-1.debian.tar.xz
 5bf25e2b2639a74fcbaa37aaaf820cf61bf29545 1575616 gitea-common_1.3.2+dfsg-1_all.deb
 286fdd1792a64af65982640f2f4e49f722745fe8 2300636 gitea-dbgsym_1.3.2+dfsg-1_amd64.deb
 6e9e6cc297b6c6ef5adb4cfed6bbf6739333cce8 20720 gitea_1.3.2+dfsg-1_amd64.buildinfo
 d0f646aeee7b70769ce604a88b8e75dfb63bfc78 6073960 gitea_1.3.2+dfsg-1_amd64.deb
 d7e7251817f59452193bbe850cf8319391bc63fd 359364 golang-code.gitea-gitea-dev_1.3.2+dfsg-1_all.deb
Checksums-Sha256:
 98f85a2e86c36bccfc61bf81afb2a734b7fc4c515d6bc9ed8c90352ed5da9890 6499 gitea_1.3.2+dfsg-1.dsc
 090d701efb51f3b4289dec4ea92e59308a1040a34e3e8b4c118f7135a11c7ffc 1186848 gitea_1.3.2+dfsg.orig.tar.xz
 9c4c754df59955e163d322f170cf49a552e4832c47546ce0af41a855736ffc10 1016532 gitea_1.3.2+dfsg-1.debian.tar.xz
 45b9f3864c81a981a5e0821a49e841c1d9a541bfcbd8291d64f4c2f851f6591e 1575616 gitea-common_1.3.2+dfsg-1_all.deb
 3e292f56017990e928c38db90eb8c3c19760d57727108406dc8915ebcd1c7866 2300636 gitea-dbgsym_1.3.2+dfsg-1_amd64.deb
 6ddc0af4ddb03b5d537794a0ea991893f87a89e03b91130c1c98d21763d203d4 20720 gitea_1.3.2+dfsg-1_amd64.buildinfo
 349a60afd1bcb349b4a81b5671abe39b623801c056fa5b19f8e5d2df466de720 6073960 gitea_1.3.2+dfsg-1_amd64.deb
 3c3db779868e98fc2300e09512a5725bf06e8586c1cca8a3b88610932d8b0554 359364 golang-code.gitea-gitea-dev_1.3.2+dfsg-1_all.deb
Files:
 583cc9a26bff489d7304bce40d835c33 6499 contrib/devel extra gitea_1.3.2+dfsg-1.dsc
 d3393c24b24528164a9c323dde532017 1186848 contrib/devel extra gitea_1.3.2+dfsg.orig.tar.xz
 a1b990512471038824decaede8a3959c 1016532 contrib/devel extra gitea_1.3.2+dfsg-1.debian.tar.xz
 58c95a1cfc09b4e29e62be09377c45c7 1575616 contrib/devel extra gitea-common_1.3.2+dfsg-1_all.deb
 69e754ad2faf0c0f2dee469176172894 2300636 contrib/debug optional gitea-dbgsym_1.3.2+dfsg-1_amd64.deb
 42a25efc9033adcbfdb2c64b72221b94 20720 contrib/devel extra gitea_1.3.2+dfsg-1_amd64.buildinfo
 886777892282b8c2499511e7c210a60d 6073960 contrib/devel extra gitea_1.3.2+dfsg-1_amd64.deb
 d6d770f915dd622a386dc60a807f1b16 359364 contrib/devel extra golang-code.gitea-gitea-dev_1.3.2+dfsg-1_all.deb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=DcIt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Message #161 received at 792101-close@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Michael Lustfield <michael@lustfield.net>

To: 792101-close@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Bug#792101: fixed in gitea 1.3.2+dfsg-1

Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 22:00:14 +0000

Source: gitea
Source-Version: 1.3.2+dfsg-1

We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
gitea, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive.

A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.  If you
have further comments please address them to 792101@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Michael Lustfield <michael@lustfield.net> (supplier of updated gitea package)

(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Format: 1.8
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 02:01:23 -0500
Source: gitea
Binary: gitea gitea-common golang-code.gitea-gitea-dev
Architecture: source all amd64
Version: 1.3.2+dfsg-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Debian Go Packaging Team <pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>
Changed-By: Michael Lustfield <michael@lustfield.net>
Description:
 gitea      - Painless self-hosted git service
 gitea-common - Painless self-hosted git service - common files
 golang-code.gitea-gitea-dev - Painless self-hosted git service -- source
Closes: 780606 792101
Changes:
 gitea (1.3.2+dfsg-1) unstable; urgency=medium
 .
   * Initial release (Closes: #780606, #792101)
Checksums-Sha1:
 2f82a678a1b661ca71c06ddfe9f84cceed382583 6499 gitea_1.3.2+dfsg-1.dsc
 dda70fca01df1ef7d939fc8a9b777030b3bdf16d 1186848 gitea_1.3.2+dfsg.orig.tar.xz
 bda4b2b05afebc987132e49362122e6c80b0bfa0 1016532 gitea_1.3.2+dfsg-1.debian.tar.xz
 5bf25e2b2639a74fcbaa37aaaf820cf61bf29545 1575616 gitea-common_1.3.2+dfsg-1_all.deb
 286fdd1792a64af65982640f2f4e49f722745fe8 2300636 gitea-dbgsym_1.3.2+dfsg-1_amd64.deb
 6e9e6cc297b6c6ef5adb4cfed6bbf6739333cce8 20720 gitea_1.3.2+dfsg-1_amd64.buildinfo
 d0f646aeee7b70769ce604a88b8e75dfb63bfc78 6073960 gitea_1.3.2+dfsg-1_amd64.deb
 d7e7251817f59452193bbe850cf8319391bc63fd 359364 golang-code.gitea-gitea-dev_1.3.2+dfsg-1_all.deb
Checksums-Sha256:
 98f85a2e86c36bccfc61bf81afb2a734b7fc4c515d6bc9ed8c90352ed5da9890 6499 gitea_1.3.2+dfsg-1.dsc
 090d701efb51f3b4289dec4ea92e59308a1040a34e3e8b4c118f7135a11c7ffc 1186848 gitea_1.3.2+dfsg.orig.tar.xz
 9c4c754df59955e163d322f170cf49a552e4832c47546ce0af41a855736ffc10 1016532 gitea_1.3.2+dfsg-1.debian.tar.xz
 45b9f3864c81a981a5e0821a49e841c1d9a541bfcbd8291d64f4c2f851f6591e 1575616 gitea-common_1.3.2+dfsg-1_all.deb
 3e292f56017990e928c38db90eb8c3c19760d57727108406dc8915ebcd1c7866 2300636 gitea-dbgsym_1.3.2+dfsg-1_amd64.deb
 6ddc0af4ddb03b5d537794a0ea991893f87a89e03b91130c1c98d21763d203d4 20720 gitea_1.3.2+dfsg-1_amd64.buildinfo
 349a60afd1bcb349b4a81b5671abe39b623801c056fa5b19f8e5d2df466de720 6073960 gitea_1.3.2+dfsg-1_amd64.deb
 3c3db779868e98fc2300e09512a5725bf06e8586c1cca8a3b88610932d8b0554 359364 golang-code.gitea-gitea-dev_1.3.2+dfsg-1_all.deb
Files:
 583cc9a26bff489d7304bce40d835c33 6499 contrib/devel extra gitea_1.3.2+dfsg-1.dsc
 d3393c24b24528164a9c323dde532017 1186848 contrib/devel extra gitea_1.3.2+dfsg.orig.tar.xz
 a1b990512471038824decaede8a3959c 1016532 contrib/devel extra gitea_1.3.2+dfsg-1.debian.tar.xz
 58c95a1cfc09b4e29e62be09377c45c7 1575616 contrib/devel extra gitea-common_1.3.2+dfsg-1_all.deb
 69e754ad2faf0c0f2dee469176172894 2300636 contrib/debug optional gitea-dbgsym_1.3.2+dfsg-1_amd64.deb
 42a25efc9033adcbfdb2c64b72221b94 20720 contrib/devel extra gitea_1.3.2+dfsg-1_amd64.buildinfo
 886777892282b8c2499511e7c210a60d 6073960 contrib/devel extra gitea_1.3.2+dfsg-1_amd64.deb
 d6d770f915dd622a386dc60a807f1b16 359364 contrib/devel extra golang-code.gitea-gitea-dev_1.3.2+dfsg-1_all.deb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=DcIt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Message #170 received at 792101@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Michael Lustfield <michael@lustfield.net>

To: 780606@bugs.debian.org, 792101@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Done / Not Done

Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 16:49:19 -0600

Just to be clear, this is not in Debian main, it is in contrib. In order for
Gitea to reach main, it needs the following two bugs resolved.

- Vue.js: https://bugs.debian.org/871459 (in progress)
- Semantic-UI: https://bugs.debian.org/871462 (need help)
  + https://wiki.debian.org/Javascript/Nodejs/Tasks/semantic-ui

If anyone wants to help get Gitea into Debian main, those two bugs need to be
resolved. The second bug (871462) can be easily broken down into (many) smaller
nodejs packages, just check the wiki page. I'd be more than happy to review and
sponsor anyone willing to help out.

-- 
Michael Lustfield

Message #175 received at 792101@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA>

To: Michael Lustfield <michael@lustfield.net>

Cc: 780606@bugs.debian.org, 792101@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#792101: Done / Not Done

Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2018 13:08:02 -0500

> Just to be clear, this is not in Debian main, it is in contrib.

Thank you very much for that.  Happily running it on my BananaPi here now.
What is its status exactly: I see "contrib" described as "free but
depending on non-free code", but it's not clear exactly what non-free
code it relies on.

I see also that it's now in "unstable" (tho not yet in "testing",
apparently) and compiled for various architectures including the armhf
I'm using, which is great.  Until those JS packaging issues are
resolved, do you plan on keeping the package uptodate on
a regular basis?


        Stefan

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.