On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 12:16:43PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 09:37:00AM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote: > > I will also support such a GR. I started packaging gitlab so we don't > > have to compromise on ease of use compared to github. > > And, despite a massive amount of efforts from you and others, packaged > gitlab is not fit for Salsa use. It hasn't also ever been in a stable > release of Debian, despite being around since a year before Stretch's > freeze.
And even if there is a package, how do you plan to ask DSA to use it and run this service themselves? Hint, as we told a hundred times before: Salsa runs on a DSA controlled machine, _without_ root. > Looking at the number and complexity of packages needed solely for gitlab, > I'd say that they'll collapse the moment you get busy with other tasks. > This doesn't say anything good about Gitlab's design. Let's compare it with other solutions: ## GitLab unicorn application * Ruby gems included directly: 199 * Ruby gems included recursive: 333 * node.js modules included directly: 113 * node.js modules included recursive: 1760 Of the Ruby gems, 6 are from GitLab itself and are maintained separate. With the listed software available everything is built from source. ## gitea * Go modules included: 122 * node.js dependent projects vendored: 21 I assume the vendored stuff can be rebuild using this: * node.js modules included directly: 8 * node.js modules included recursive: 516 ## pagure * Python modules required directly: 70 * node.js dependent projects vendored: 16 Regards, Bastian -- Klingon phaser attack from front!!!!! 100% Damage to life support!!!!