Felitendo
a053b4e555
The code works on those distributions now; there was still nothing to install. This adds the two packages and, more to the point, somewhere for them to live that hands out updates - a package a user has to notice a new version of and download again is not much better than a checkout. Both are built from `make install` and nothing else. A packaging script that lists the installed files a second time is a second description of the layout, and the two drift the first time a file moves; here the Makefile stays the only place that says where anything goes. The .deb is staged and wrapped with dpkg-deb, the .rpm goes through a spec whose %install is the same make invocation. Both are architecture-independent, so one file each covers Debian, Ubuntu and their derivatives on one side and Fedora, RHEL and openSUSE on the other. The version is not written down twice either. The Makefile has it, the control file and the spec take it as a placeholder, and check-version.sh refuses a tag that disagrees - otherwise a v1.0.4 release quietly ships a program that reports 1.0.3. The release workflow builds both in a Debian and a Fedora container, signs the RPM where there is a native rpm-sign, attaches both to the GitHub release, and then adds them to an APT and a DNF repository on gh-pages, regenerating the indexes over every version ever published so that pinning and going back to one still work. Missing the signing key is not an error: it builds, it says in the log that the repositories were left alone, and the packages are still on the release. There is also a check workflow, which is the first time shellcheck actually runs on this. Neither package carries a maintainer script. The units are enabled per user by the program itself, so there is nothing for a package to do as root - and nothing it could do about the changes in a user's home either, which is why both descriptions say to run `disable` before removing. packaging/README.md has the two things that cannot be automated: making the signing key, and pointing Pages at the branch.
37 lines
1.0 KiB
Bash
Executable File
37 lines
1.0 KiB
Bash
Executable File
#!/usr/bin/env bash
|
|
#
|
|
# Refuses a release whose tag and Makefile disagree.
|
|
#
|
|
# The version is baked into the program at install time from the Makefile, and
|
|
# the packages take theirs from the same place - but the tag is what people see
|
|
# and what the release is named after. A tag that says something else produces
|
|
# a package called 1.0.4 containing a program that reports 1.0.3, and nothing
|
|
# would have complained.
|
|
#
|
|
# Anything that is not a v-tag - a run started by hand from a branch - is not a
|
|
# release and has nothing to check.
|
|
|
|
set -euo pipefail
|
|
|
|
here="$(cd -- "$(dirname -- "${BASH_SOURCE[0]}")/.." && pwd)"
|
|
ref="${1:-}"
|
|
|
|
case "$ref" in
|
|
v[0-9]*) ;;
|
|
*)
|
|
echo "not a release tag (${ref:-none}) - nothing to check against"
|
|
exit 0
|
|
;;
|
|
esac
|
|
|
|
tag_version="${ref#v}"
|
|
make_version="$(make -s -C "$here" version)"
|
|
|
|
if [[ $tag_version != "$make_version" ]]; then
|
|
echo "tag $ref says $tag_version, the Makefile says $make_version" >&2
|
|
echo "Bump VERSION in the Makefile to match the tag, or retag." >&2
|
|
exit 1
|
|
fi
|
|
|
|
echo "$ref matches the Makefile"
|