| 26 May 2021 |
 proletarius101 | In reply to @freenode_jochensp:matrix.org
the checksum seems to be sha256 Yeah, but do I need to download them all to get a checksum...? | 11:28:43 |
 jochensp | I guess so | 11:29:09 |
| jochensp | hm.. there is a buster basebox in makebuildserver, so would it be enough to change BASEBOX_VERSION_DEFAULT? | 11:30:56 |
| proletarius101 | In reply to @freenode_jochensp:matrix.org
hm.. there is a buster basebox in makebuildserver, so would it be enough to change BASEBOX_VERSION_DEFAULT? Yeah, and also the checksums | 11:31:47 |
| proletarius101 | Well, I guess I have to leave only one of the baseboxes in the makebuildserver | 11:32:04 |
| jochensp | huh, why? | 11:32:14 |
| proletarius101 | eh, because it's too hard to download them all? | 11:33:50 |
| jochensp | who would download them all? | 11:34:01 |
| proletarius101 | me to fill the checksums? | 11:34:37 |
| jochensp | but the checksums are there, where do you want to fill them= | 11:34:56 |
| jochensp | ? | 11:34:58 |
| proletarius101 | BASEBOX_DEFAULT is the basebox variant, but BASEBOX_CHECKSUMS is based on the versions | 11:35:00 |
| proletarius101 | so if I change the BASEBOX_DEFAULT from stretch to buster, all BASEBOX_CHECKSUMS are different | 11:35:29 |
| jochensp | huh, I would assume that they don't change | 11:36:04 |
| jochensp | those are past basebox releases, I don't see them changing in git history | 11:36:51 |
 @festplattenschnitzel:matrix.org | In reply to @proletarius101:matrix.org
(BTW, we are already using the non-free hosted vagrant box hosting service and GitHub, do we need to be so sensitive to the open-core GitLab Ultimate...) Can't we "package" them via GitLab CI and pull them in with a simple curl or wget? | 11:37:27 |
| proletarius101 | In reply to @festplattenschnitzel:matrix.org
Can't we "package" them via GitLab CI and pull them in with a simple curl or wget? Eh, what is "them"? boxes? | 11:37:56 |
| proletarius101 | I would certainly be for that | 11:38:34 |
| proletarius101 | In reply to @freenode_jochensp:matrix.org
those are past basebox releases, I don't see them changing in git history fdroid/basebox-stretch64 0.6.0 and fdroid/basebox-buster64 0.6.0 are totally different files... | 11:40:04 |
| jochensp | yes | 11:41:04 |
| @festplattenschnitzel:matrix.org | In reply to @proletarius101:matrix.org
I would certainly be for that basebox#2 | 11:41:27 |
| jochensp | proletarius101: err, where do you see fdroid/basebox-stretch64 0.6.0 ? | 11:45:59 |
| proletarius101 | In reply to @freenode_jochensp:matrix.org
proletarius101: err, where do you see fdroid/basebox-stretch64 0.6.0 ? No. Then probably 0.6.0 = buster64 | 11:50:02 |
| jochensp | yes | 11:50:14 |
 _hc | In reply to @proletarius101:matrix.org
For https://gitlab.com/fdroid/basebox, are there anything preventing us from releasing boxes with up-to-date dependencies? uniq: could you push an update to fdroid-buster64? Right now it has an old version of grub, and upgrading that requires manual interventin | 12:13:43 |
| _hc | proletarius101: about cmake, I imagine that many builds are based on the Google cmake binaries, we should probably keep cmake installation in the build metadata | 12:16:49 |
| _hc | make;3.6.4111459 | 3.6.4111459 | CMake 3.6.4111459
~ $ /opt/android-sdk/tools/bin/sdkmanager --list|grep cmake | awk '{print $1}'
cmake;3.10.2.4988404
cmake;3.6.4111459
cmake;3.10.2.4988404
cmake;3.18.1
cmake;3.6.4111459
| 12:18:35 |
| _hc | * ~ $ /opt/android-sdk/tools/bin/sdkmanager --list|grep cmake | awk '{print $1}'
cmake;3.10.2.4988404
cmake;3.6.4111459
cmake;3.10.2.4988404
cmake;3.18.1
cmake;3.6.4111459
| 12:18:45 |
| @festplattenschnitzel:matrix.org | _hc would you mind me recreating basebox!22. The goal is to write a CI job, that builds a Basebox image … | 12:47:01 |
| @festplattenschnitzel:matrix.org | ? | 12:47:15 |
