www-apps/gitea: bump to 1.10.0 #13696

xdch47 · 2019-11-18T13:03:39Z

Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.76, Repoman-2.3.18
Signed-off-by: Felix Neumärker xdch47@posteo.de

gentoo-bot · 2019-11-18T13:04:11Z

Pull Request assignment

Submitter: @xdch47
Areas affected: ebuilds
Packages affected: www-apps/gitea

www-apps/gitea: @nemunaire, @gentoo/proxy-maint

Linked bugs

No bugs to link found. If your pull request references any of the Gentoo bug reports, please add appropriate GLEP 66 tags to the commit message and request reassignment.

If you do not receive any reply to this pull request, please open or link a bug to attract the attention of maintainers.

In order to force reassignment and/or bug reference scan, please append [please reassign] to the pull request title.

Docs: Code of Conduct ● Copyright policy (expl.) ● Devmanual ● GitHub PRs ● Proxy-maint guide

juippis

Then the customary question: Would you like to maintain this again :)

No big issues here btw, I'm just asking for clarification.

www-apps/gitea/gitea-1.10.0.ebuild

juippis · 2019-11-19T06:01:12Z

www-apps/gitea/gitea-1.10.0.ebuild

+src_prepare() {
+	default
+
+	local sedcmds=(


Why not make this huge list into a patch? Can some of these be upstreamed, I see some are Gentoo-specific?

with the removal of the non-needed seds (APP_ID and TRUSTED_FACETS (since 1.8.0) i don't think there is much to upstream, the path stuff is gentoo specific (does EPREFIX expansion even work in a patch?) and so is the logging, HTTP_ADDR used to be localhost via LOCAL_ROOT_URL (i think?) and that was pre-1.0 so i don't think that's what upstream wants either. RUN_MODE will be set to prod when the webinstaller ran successfully so no reason to upstream that either

(does EPREFIX expansion even work in a patch?)

There's a syntax for it that works in a patch, I don't remember it now. $(EPREFIX) or @EPREFIX@ I suppose.

juippis · 2019-11-20T14:37:22Z

Tests fail for me, can you get them to work?

--- FAIL: TestBlob_Data (0.00s)
    blob_test.go:39:
        	Error Trace:	blob_test.go:39
        	Error:      	Received unexpected error:
        	            	no such file or directory
        	Test:       	TestBlob_Data
panic: runtime error: invalid memory address or nil pointer dereference [recovered]
	panic: runtime error: invalid memory address or nil pointer dereference
[signal SIGSEGV: segmentation violation code=0x1 addr=0x18 pc=0x7f2669]

So please either fix or restrict them. If you end up restricting, write a comment above what fails and why it's restricted.

xdch47 · 2019-11-20T21:10:31Z

git access is need for a lot of tests - would it be possible using git-r3 (with EGIT_COMMIT) an option, even so repoman gives LIVEVCS.unmasked ?

juippis · 2019-11-21T13:10:06Z

Hmm, I do wonder, some if use test; then inherit git-r3

But I believe it's just overcomplicating things for little benefit. Just add restrict and a comment saying it needs live git access.

xdch47 · 2019-11-21T17:51:34Z

i just added an additional live ebuild (and remove the test which do not work due to the missing git repo for the »release« version of the ebuild)

xdch47 · 2019-11-21T17:56:42Z

forgot to fix the depend issue - hopefully now ...

Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.76, Repoman-2.3.18 Signed-off-by: Felix Neumärker <xdch47@posteo.de>

gentoo-repo-qa-bot · 2019-11-22T17:41:49Z

Pull request CI report

Report generated at: 2019-11-22 17:41 UTC
Newest commit scanned: 01062ec
Status: ✅ good

juippis

Thanks a lot! In future, if everything is ok with the ebuild, merge should be pretty straightforward and fast. Like, latest EAPI, licenses, tests working...

Also I'd like to replace rm -f with || die but won't have time to check the logic (like, do the files exists or not between live and release) so let's go with this for now.

xdch47 · 2019-11-24T15:34:29Z

yes, the rm -f could have been replaced by rm ... || die - I just added this to make the live ebuild more robust (for the release this is non-sense of course and should have been different - sorry).
or should the live version fail as well if the test are going to be renamed ?

juippis · 2019-11-26T14:31:15Z

or should the live version fail as well if the test are going to be renamed ?

I think yes, since it's a clear implication that something has changed in upstream code, requiring maintainer attention.

gentoo-bot added assigned PR successfully assigned to the package maintainer(s). no bug found No Bug/Closes found in the commits. labels Nov 18, 2019

juippis reviewed Nov 19, 2019

View reviewed changes

xdch47 force-pushed the www-apps/gitea branch from ba3bb74 to d0c9236 Compare November 20, 2019 12:32

xdch47 force-pushed the www-apps/gitea branch from d0c9236 to c454af5 Compare November 21, 2019 17:49

xdch47 force-pushed the www-apps/gitea branch from c454af5 to 4e1aefb Compare November 21, 2019 17:56

www-apps/gitea: bump to 1.10 + add live ebuild

01062ec

Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.76, Repoman-2.3.18 Signed-off-by: Felix Neumärker <xdch47@posteo.de>

xdch47 force-pushed the www-apps/gitea branch from 4e1aefb to 01062ec Compare November 22, 2019 17:02

juippis approved these changes Nov 24, 2019

View reviewed changes

gentoo-bot closed this in fcfc8fc Nov 24, 2019

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

www-apps/gitea: bump to 1.10.0 #13696

www-apps/gitea: bump to 1.10.0 #13696

xdch47 commented Nov 18, 2019

gentoo-bot commented Nov 18, 2019

juippis left a comment

juippis Nov 19, 2019

Dessa Nov 19, 2019

juippis Nov 20, 2019

juippis commented Nov 20, 2019

xdch47 commented Nov 20, 2019

juippis commented Nov 21, 2019

xdch47 commented Nov 21, 2019

xdch47 commented Nov 21, 2019

gentoo-repo-qa-bot commented Nov 22, 2019

juippis left a comment

xdch47 commented Nov 24, 2019

juippis commented Nov 26, 2019

www-apps/gitea: bump to 1.10.0 #13696

www-apps/gitea: bump to 1.10.0 #13696

Conversation

xdch47 commented Nov 18, 2019

gentoo-bot commented Nov 18, 2019

Pull Request assignment

Linked bugs

juippis left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

juippis Nov 19, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Dessa Nov 19, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

juippis Nov 20, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

juippis commented Nov 20, 2019

xdch47 commented Nov 20, 2019

juippis commented Nov 21, 2019

xdch47 commented Nov 21, 2019

xdch47 commented Nov 21, 2019

gentoo-repo-qa-bot commented Nov 22, 2019

Pull request CI report

juippis left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

xdch47 commented Nov 24, 2019

juippis commented Nov 26, 2019