Re: Discussion: stop sftp package uploads

On 28/07/2025 06:23, Brian Inglis via Cygwin-apps wrote:
> On 2025-07-27 13:18, Jon Turney via Cygwin-apps wrote:
>> On 05/07/2025 15:16, Andrew Schulman via Cygwin-apps wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2 Jul 2025 22:06:45 +0100, Jon Turney via Cygwin-apps wrote:
>>>
>>>> Having developers build executable packages locally and then upload 
>>>> them
>>>> doesn't really meet contemporary standards.
>>>>
>>>> Given my druthers, I'd just disable sftp package uploads right now, and
>>>> make you all use the janky "build service" I hacked together in a few
>>>> spare weekends.
>>>
>>> Are there any Cygwin packages that aren't fully cygport-scriptable 
>>> yet? For
>>> example, are there any that rely on (free) software not yet available in
>>> Cygwin for their builds? If so, then they'll need to keep being built 
>>> locally
>>> and manully uploaded.
>>
>> So, to be clear, the answer is "yes" to the first part, and "no" to 
>> the second part.
>>
>> Instances of the first case that I'm aware of are:
>>
>> * all(?) of Jari Aalto's packages use g-b-s for build and packaging. 
>> (This is probably supportable with some sort of extension to declare 
>> the build-requires)
>>
>> * mintty assembles the package archives itself and uploads those along 
>> with a set of pre-written hint files. (I'm trying to work with Thomas 
>> to make this a bit more like regular usage)
>>
>>
>> I don't think there are any instances of the second case, and such a 
>> thing would probably be unacceptable as a package.
> 
> A number of packages have some failing test cases which prevent deploy, 
> or hang under CI requiring cancel: sometimes getting the tests to run is 
> like playing whack-a-mole, and some upstreams don't even respond to 
> patch submissions, although they are sometimes incorporated; others tell 
> you not to hold your breath, as it could be months. ;^>
> 

failing some tests or taking too long on build/test is not uncommon
on same of my packages

Regards
Marco