-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 29
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
[Feature Request] Binary packages for releases #89
Comments
Hi Louis. I thought about it but never tried to implement such a feature. In particular I do not know how and where to stock the final artifacts. |
Yes I did eventually manage to generate a Debian package :) As for where to store: you can use releases for this, I see you already include tarballs there. The trickiest part would be the build, then. If I'm reading this correctly, you can use Docker with GH actions, which seems pretty neat. |
Actually the deb I created with Buster doesn't contain the binaries. I don't really know what happened. The build never worked from the git repo, I got:
I eventually managed to run |
The make produces several .deb files because in v29 iwe switch to a multi-packages setup. Maybe you just checked the meta-package? It should be the only one that does not contain any binary. |
I was looking at Am I missing something here? |
I did not include the packages because of the high number. Several distributions are supported and each in a few different versions. If you have any idea for improving the situation I'll be glad to discuss and implement it |
I think you forgot the |
I completely missed the submodule, my bad. Still, there is something weird going on: the build resulted in e.g.
The build process also required manual input:
Maybe you could make one archive per distro and that archive would contain all checks? Otherwise, I guess you'd need to host the files somewhere else. |
Ok. I can reproduce the issue, sorry :/ |
Thanks to by [sbraz](https://github.com/sbraz) for pointing this out in the issue: #89 Signed-off-by: Davide Madrisan <[email protected]>
Thanks to by [sbraz](https://github.com/sbraz) for pointing this out in the issue: #89 Signed-off-by: Davide Madrisan <[email protected]>
Thanks to by [sbraz](https://github.com/sbraz) for pointing this out in the issue: #89 Signed-off-by: Davide Madrisan <[email protected]>
Thanks to by [sbraz](https://github.com/sbraz) for pointing this out in the issue: #89 Signed-off-by: Davide Madrisan <[email protected]>
Thanks to by [sbraz](https://github.com/sbraz) for pointing this out in the issue: #89 Signed-off-by: Davide Madrisan <[email protected]>
Back from holiday... Sorry for the delay. |
Thanks to by [sbraz](https://github.com/sbraz) for pointing this out in the issue: #89 Signed-off-by: Davide Madrisan <[email protected]>
Thanks to by [sbraz](https://github.com/sbraz) for pointing this out in the issue: #89 Signed-off-by: Davide Madrisan <[email protected]>
Thanks to by [sbraz](https://github.com/sbraz) for pointing this out in the issue: #89 Signed-off-by: Davide Madrisan <[email protected]>
🚀 Feature Request
Describe the solution you'd like
Hi Davide,
Have you considered using GitHub's CI or something similar to provide Debian/Fedora packages along with the source for each release?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: