Hi On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 2:57 PM Victor Toso <victortoso@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 02:44:23PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > > Hi > > > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 2:21 PM Victor Toso <victortoso@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 02:06:19PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 1:59 PM Victor Toso <victortoso@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 01:09:41PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > > > > > > > Having a virt-viewer flatpak does not mean _not_ having a > > > > > > > spicy.flatkpak (to me); one is full featured spice client while > > > > > > > the other a testing tool... > > > > > > > > > > > > It looks like a lot of duplication of flatpak effort. Maybe you could > > > > > > simply ship spicy in virt-viewer flatpak, so it could be run from > > > > > > command line (please no .desktop) > > > > > > > > > > Is the fact that we are installing a .desktop for spicy the only > > > > > issue here or you don't want to see a flatpak of spicy in the > > > > > gitlab-ci anyway? (btw, I'm not planning to upload this to any > > > > > flatpak provider). > > > > > > > > What's the point in building a spice-gtk flatpak then, when you > > > > have virt-viewer flatpak? > > > > > > You replied my question with another question. > > > > > > My main motivation is that spicy is self contained in spice-gtk, > > > smaller and targeted to be a testing tool, so, testing spice-gtk > > > changes. > > > > I see, you would like CI build version readily available. > > As you can see by browsing the link in the cover letter > > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/victortoso/spice-gtk/-/jobs/105184/artifacts/browse > > > (kind of a waste of space to me, but it may be useful) > > 1.1 MB. To avoid waste of space, the flatkpak is not generated > automatically but manually, that is, you have to click on this > 'job' in the CI to activate it; besides that, the artifact is set > to expire_in: 2 days Ok, I don't see much point in having it built in the CI then > > > virt-viewer with only --enable-spice-gtk shouldn't have much more > > dependencies though. > > > > If I add virt-viewer -> flatpak or msi installer to gitlab-ci's > > > artifacts, that's out of scope of spice-gtk although I'll be > > > using it all the time... > > > > Oh you are thinking about building virt-viewer from spice-gtk CI? > > interesting... I wonder if there are mechanisms already to trigger > > rebuilds of dependent projects, I am pretty sure there are > > solutions to that. And flatpak build can pull from upstream > > repository master I guess. > > My interest is testing spice/spice-gtk only. So, to regenerate > virt-viewer flatpak from spice-gtk CI because there is a new > commit in virt-viewer is totally out of context, for me. No, but your interest seems to have a flatpak readily available when doing a commit in spice-gtk. > > I'd be glad if virt-viewer was in gitlab, close to no knowledge > around Pagure infra. > > I still don't know if your earlier concern around .desktop is due > the fact we are installing it (patch 04/10) or with spicy > flatkpak itself. I am concern about distributing spice-gtk and spicy in new forms in general. The .desktop is pretty much a no-go to me. The flatpak I don't really understand what we need / want it for. -- Marc-André Lureau _______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel