-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 648
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
ci: add Chocolatey support #8921
Conversation
You're probably right. |
The binaries we ship include enterprise code. We don't ship AGPL binaries and don't plan to. The enterprise binaries will not use enterprise features without a valid license. This should probably be uncommented
Yes, probably. With both the enterprise license and AGPL license shown if possible |
It seems that the nuspec only accepts one Also, should this use slim binaries instead ? |
I guess? @bpmct |
No this should be fat binaries from GitHub releases. We don't ship slim binaries except for use in agents and our vscode extension |
I have applied your modifications and I am waiting for @bpmct's input on the license thing. Should I squash the license change into the "ci: add Chocolatey manifest" commit or simply create another commit ? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM, we just need Ben or someone else to add API keys and comment on the license thing
I'm in favor of a LICENSE.mixed. We're submitting to other package manager things such as AWS Marketplace and they also only support a single license URL. Edit: this does not seem that common. Let's link to the enterprise license instead since that is what we distribute. |
We set |
Yes but I think it also makes sense given that multi-licensing is not so common, and maybe they don't use the name "LICENSE.mixed", that was simply a suggestion.
I think it would make sense to follow this behavior since we're already doing it with the rest. |
@phorcys420, is it ready for merging? |
@matifali I was still waiting for Ben because I think we should really use the dual license. I will change the license right now. |
sorry, had to force-push because I am not used to git yet and merged the main branch on accident. |
Co-authored-by: Muhammad Atif Ali <matifali@live.com>
Co-authored-by: Dean Sheather <dean@deansheather.com>
Co-authored-by: Dean Sheather <dean@deansheather.com>
Co-authored-by: Muhammad Atif Ali <matifali@live.com>
Let's merge it. :) |
Hello all, I'm finally contributing Chocolatey building (#3714) to the project long after I said I would do it.
This is a draft because there are some questions that need to be answered by the team:
copyright
be uncommented ? (L26 ofcoder.nuspec
) (I think it should be removed since this is the community edition right ?requireLicenseAcceptance
be uncommented ? (L28 ofcoder.nuspec
)CHOCO_API_KEY
GH secret with the API key.Other than that, I have tested all the PowerShell code in PS v7 and it works like intended (except for
choco push
).I could not get the GH action to run in my repository, so that's the only thing I see that might cause issues, because the action itself was not tested. @matifali recommended that I don't bother trying to get the action running in my own repo, so here I am!
Now that I'm looking at this, there is another question I would like asking, does the winget job actually need to checkout and fetch tags ? from what I see it doesn't actually need the repo to be cloned at all.