undefined | Better HN

0 pointse12e11y ago0 comments

Thank you for sharing your points: for me this is actually quite an endorsement of gogs (But then, I'm not looking for an alternative to gitlab).

> * There is no Debian package which would be nice.

True. AFAIK there aren't any packages in Debian that depend on go/golang yet, not even in sid. That doesn't mean one can't make out-of-band debs, of course, but gogs unfortunately isn't alone here. Does anyone know of any util/tool/package in go (other than golang) that's packaged for Debian?

> * It's written in a language that most Devs / Ops can't contribute to or bug fix.

As opposed to what? I'd think being able to patch something in go would be within the grasp of most Ops, and also most devs?

0 comments

mrmondo11y ago

For sure - it's got lots of promise and we are by no means bound to what we've bought into - we'll use whatever's best, at the moment that's Gitlab.

To clarify I didn't mean that it would be nice to have packages that are maintained by or in the default Debian repo - but an apt repo for the project would be nice.

I've found Go a pain to read and hack with - Ruby and Python however are a lot more readable and any of our ops or devs would feel confident in finding / reporting bugs in either.

e12eOP11y ago

Actually, I was wrong (also in my sibling comment):

http://gogs.io/docs/installation/install_from_packages.md

(Linked from the github page). So there are debs available of gogs. Trying to figure out how to build a deb from the git repo, but if all you want is upstream binary debs, you appear to be covered.

e12eOP11y ago

See this stackoverflow q/a -- it appears to contain most of the current highlights. Basically Ubuntu has started packaging a few go apps, and fpm[f] seems to be an ok alternative in the meanwhile:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/15104089/packaging-golang...

packager.io (which upstream googs uses) seems to be a nice way to just get packages out there, but as far as I can tell it's pretty well walled-off behind a service, so no easy way to build locally, off-line, or without using packager.io etc. In that sense it strikes me as a poor choice for Free software, as there is no promise that things will continue to work, or can be made to work, long term.

[f] https://github.com/jordansissel/fpm

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointse12e11y ago0 comments

Thank you for sharing your points: for me this is actually quite an endorsement of gogs (But then, I'm not looking for an alternative to gitlab).

> * There is no Debian package which would be nice.

> * It's written in a language that most Devs / Ops can't contribute to or bug fix.

As opposed to what? I'd think being able to patch something in go would be within the grasp of most Ops, and also most devs?

0 comments

mrmondo11y ago

For sure - it's got lots of promise and we are by no means bound to what we've bought into - we'll use whatever's best, at the moment that's Gitlab.

To clarify I didn't mean that it would be nice to have packages that are maintained by or in the default Debian repo - but an apt repo for the project would be nice.

I've found Go a pain to read and hack with - Ruby and Python however are a lot more readable and any of our ops or devs would feel confident in finding / reporting bugs in either.

e12eOP11y ago

Actually, I was wrong (also in my sibling comment):

http://gogs.io/docs/installation/install_from_packages.md

(Linked from the github page). So there are debs available of gogs. Trying to figure out how to build a deb from the git repo, but if all you want is upstream binary debs, you appear to be covered.

e12eOP11y ago

See this stackoverflow q/a -- it appears to contain most of the current highlights. Basically Ubuntu has started packaging a few go apps, and fpm[f] seems to be an ok alternative in the meanwhile:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/15104089/packaging-golang...

[f] https://github.com/jordansissel/fpm

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse