Hi all, this is offtopic (sorry!), but since we kept discussing Salsa -
I wonder, what are people doing for private code?

I have around 40 git repositories of private code that I keep, and
while a subset of them are somewhat managed (living under a common
`gitroot` directory), not all are. Plus, all under my user, so I could
easily shoot myself in the foot via a force push, and I don't have any
actual automation about either tests (I need to keep remembering to run
tests), nor do I have automated builds afterwards. Etc. etc.

So I was thinking, I could install a git forge for just myself, remove
admin rights from my normal user, enable branch protections, add CI/CD, automate a lot of internal package builds, etc. but it does seem a lot
of overhead. But yes, it would be a full solution, and mostly standard
rather than hand-built. I dream of pushing a commit, then having
automated debian packages built for both amd64 and arm64 and uploaded to
my internal apt repo.

I wonder, does anyone do this? And if so, how?

From what I see, in Debian we only have Gitlab, and my internet searches

say Gitlab itself is heavy on resources. Gitea/Forgejo are common
recommended solutions for "home hosting", but neither is packaged.
There's also gitolite, but that's just the ACL aspect (still, it would
be better than what I do today, so at least I will switch to it).

What do people think? And thanks for reading.

iustin

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 10/16/24 18:18, Iustin Pop wrote:

Gitea/Forgejo are common recommended solutions for "home hosting", but neither is packaged.

(jftr) I'm currently working with Forgejo upstream to get one last
feature implemented that we'll need at work to switch to it, and then
finish the packaging of it in Debian. Realistically I expect the
packages to be ready by end of the year (we have local ones that need
some polishing/finishing in order to get them acceptable for Debian, as
well as a bunch of build-depends)..

..which reminded me that I forgot to take over the Forgejo RFP, done now.

Regards,
Daniel

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 2024-10-16 19:24:32 +0200, Daniel Baumann <daniel@debian.org> wrote:

On 10/16/24 18:18, Iustin Pop wrote:

Gitea/Forgejo are common recommended solutions for "home hosting", but neither is packaged.

(jftr) I'm currently working with Forgejo upstream to get one last
feature implemented that we'll need at work to switch to it, and then
finish the packaging of it in Debian. Realistically I expect the
packages to be ready by end of the year (we have local ones that need
some polishing/finishing in order to get them acceptable for Debian, as
well as a bunch of build-depends)..

That is great news! I am at about the same point as Iustin is. At
work, we're using Gitlab as well (but it's a fat boy.) And
alternatives aren't packaged. So I'll probably be one of your first
users in January (coincidentally, I'll also have three weeks of
holidays!)

Thanks a lot for your work!

MfG, JBG

--

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iF0EABECAB0WIQQlDTvPcScNjKREqWEdvV51g5nhuwUCZxASDAAKCRAdvV51g5nh u1ytAJ0WJUG/z/sPAVJoPaBbYcIt2rVv+ACfaTgRqk71jjD5BktRCRrBKAW7UIo=
=Dl88
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Iustin Pop wrote:

Gitea/Forgejo are common
recommended solutions for "home hosting", but neither is packaged.

Forgejo has unofficial Debian packages that work fine with bookworm, at
least.

<https://codeberg.org/forgejo-contrib/forgejo-deb>

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2024-10-16 21:20:48, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:

On Wed, 2024-10-16 19:24:32 +0200, Daniel Baumann <daniel@debian.org> wrote:

On 10/16/24 18:18, Iustin Pop wrote:

Gitea/Forgejo are common recommended solutions for "home hosting", but neither is packaged.

(jftr) I'm currently working with Forgejo upstream to get one last
feature implemented that we'll need at work to switch to it, and then finish the packaging of it in Debian. Realistically I expect the
packages to be ready by end of the year (we have local ones that need
some polishing/finishing in order to get them acceptable for Debian, as well as a bunch of build-depends)..

That is great news! I am at about the same point as Iustin is. At
work, we're using Gitlab as well (but it's a fat boy.) And
alternatives aren't packaged. So I'll probably be one of your first
users in January (coincidentally, I'll also have three weeks of
holidays!)

I'm also glad to hear! Although, having read more, even the LTS version
(of Forgejo) has a very short lifetime, not sure how this will play with
Debian releases. Likely keeping sid up with LTS or most recent versions,
and relying heavily on backports for stable servers. Daniel, what's your
plan?

In any case, I've spent the last days playing with Forgejo in a VM, and
I'm more and more convinced that the downsides (of having to maintain a
forge) are less than the upsides, so I'll probably go ahead with Forgejo
from upstream until there are packages.

What sold me (after many days of considering the pros and cons) was
realising it takes only 5 seconds to create a local mirror of one of my
github repos (faster than setting up a cron job to do it, by far), and
my surprise at it picking up my github actions config and trying to run
the CI - which it failed, sync properly setting up forgejob-runner is
more steps.

iustin

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2024-10-19 15:47:21, Thomas Hochstein wrote:

Iustin Pop wrote:

Gitea/Forgejo are common
recommended solutions for "home hosting", but neither is packaged.

Forgejo has unofficial Debian packages that work fine with bookworm, at least.

<https://codeberg.org/forgejo-contrib/forgejo-deb>

Thnks, I didn't know specifically about this, but in general I try to
stay away from unofficial Deb packaging, since it adds a second unknown
into the equation (first is the upstream that I need to learn, then the
quirks, if any, of the deb packaging).

Reading the README this seems sane enough, so I'll look into it.

iustin

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --------------4ZT0Gz8jfanY0Nfs1QDX44fp
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

SGksDQoNCk9uIDIwLTEwLTIwMjQgMjA6MjQsIEl1c3RpbiBQb3Agd3JvdGU6DQo+IEknbSBh bHNvIGdsYWQgdG8gaGVhciEgQWx0aG91Z2gsIGhhdmluZyByZWFkIG1vcmUsIGV2ZW4gdGhl IExUUyB2ZXJzaW9uDQo+IChvZiBGb3JnZWpvKSBoYXMgYSB2ZXJ5IHNob3J0IGxpZmV0aW1l LCBub3Qgc3VyZSBob3cgdGhpcyB3aWxsIHBsYXkgd2l0aA0KPiBEZWJpYW4gcmVsZWFzZXMu IExpa2VseSBrZWVwaW5nIHNpZCB1cCB3aXRoIExUUyBvciBtb3N0IHJlY2VudCB2ZXJzaW9u cywNCj4gYW5kIHJlbHlpbmcgaGVhdmlseSBvbiBiYWNrcG9ydHMgZm9yIHN0YWJsZSBzZXJ2 ZXJzLiBEYW5pZWwsIHdoYXQncyB5b3VyDQo+IHBsYW4/DQoNClRoZXJlJ3MgYWxzbyBmYXN0 dHJhY2sgWzFdLCB3aGljaCBzb3VuZHMgbW9yZSBzdWl0YWJsZSB0aGFuIGJhY2twb3J0cyBi eSANCndoYXQgeW91IHdyaXRlIGFib3ZlLg0KDQpQYXVsDQoNClsxXSBodHRwczovL2Zhc3R0 cmFjay5kZWJpYW4ubmV0Lw0KDQo=

--------------4ZT0Gz8jfanY0Nfs1QDX44fp--

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

wsB5BAABCAAjFiEEWLZtSHNr6TsFLeZynFyZ6wW9dQoFAmcVTXMFAwAAAAAACgkQnFyZ6wW9dQqn Igf/XD9o6OWXbPNHGWOXbw9XtmmDgtXUJFnlfIstWL3Q6NUW6c7AtOhwNJ3kOQlSPtRxsPG63Y6T +ibL58ZKCOcpM2BpJ//feKPCJj/TVXaZNYJiNmOiWvQ7JzAnxxu5kbp5wpBxW7dMBvMKi+EB1HUm c44C8qgeYV58zp7Uy1GQL6fQmDrqXegLfkEyGah9J0yWngKISDoX7/KqkO29u8KBo+i9fbJa+5/C OQ9fRDn/MAPJ8J+F/r9/pXDI5qW/bbU9EG22TwErDt8jX5jIFXqW4w62GnkYigJ1vxEAkOE6mUaG ZDMwH6IQ0K1uiT2Ci+6qsgjk80tYn5gUkFs0BsHPng==
=gHxB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed Oct 16, 2024 at 1:18 PM -03, Iustin Pop wrote:

Hi all, this is offtopic (sorry!), but since we kept discussing Salsa -
I wonder, what are people doing for private code?

...

What do people think? And thanks for reading.

Hi Iustin,

I use soft-serve and abuse Git hooks for CI/CD, since it's in a small
VPS. IMO, bash is more efficient than YAML.

I love its TUI.

https://github.com/charmbracelet/soft-serve

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 at 10:42, Daniel Baumann <daniel@debian.org> wrote:

On 10/16/24 18:18, Iustin Pop wrote:

Gitea/Forgejo are common recommended solutions for "home hosting", but neither is packaged.

(jftr) I'm currently working with Forgejo upstream to get one last
feature implemented that we'll need at work to switch to it, and then
finish the packaging of it in Debian. Realistically I expect the
packages to be ready by end of the year (we have local ones that need
some polishing/finishing in order to get them acceptable for Debian, as
well as a bunch of build-depends)..

..which reminded me that I forgot to take over the Forgejo RFP, done now.

Related to this I today noticed that https://forgejo.debian.net/ is up
and running, and Daniel is already using it for "production" use by
hosting his own packages there.

It would be nice to read a writeup of what you plan is, and how the Go
team or other DDs in general are expected to relate to this. Most
people are familiar with Forgejo and many have an account on e.g.
Codeberg, so I think we are in particular interested in your plan
regarding gains from Forgejo in Debian vs costs from fragmentation.
Perhaps a blog post, Debian news item or other announcement?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Hi Otto,

On 5/21/25 03:23, Otto Kekäläinen wrote:

It would be nice to read a writeup of what you plan is, and how the Go
team or other DDs in general are expected to relate to this.

I'm packaging forgejo (currently ~21 golang packages are waiting in NEW, another ~10 soon to be finished) to be eventually included in Debian.

To eat my own dogfood, I've setup forgejo.d.n and pushed my own packages
there.

Once forgejo is in Debian, I intend to keep using forgejo.d.n as a test-environment for the forgejo packages before an upload happens to
Debian, tested with my own "production data" (= my other packages hosted
on it).

your plan regarding gains from Forgejo in Debian

I don't have any plans other than to have forgejo included in Debian so
users (like myself) who want to use it, can use it from the Debian
archive instead of everyone maintaining their manual setup individually.

OIOW, one of the reasons why a lot of packages are in Debian in the
first place :)

costs from fragmentation.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean with "fragmentation" in this
context. Would you mind explaining?

Perhaps a blog post, Debian news item or other announcement?

Once forgejo is actually in Debian, I'll would like to do so, yes.

Regards,
Daniel

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Daniel Baumann wrote:

On 5/21/25 03:23, Otto Kekäläinen wrote:

costs from fragmentation.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean with "fragmentation" in this
context. Would you mind explaining?

Probably Otto thought you woould be going to provide <https://forgejo.debian.net/> as an alternative to salsa.

-thh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 5/21/25 22:18, Thomas Hochstein wrote:

Probably Otto thought you would be going to provide <https://forgejo.debian.net/> as an alternative to salsa.

oh, I see. no - I absolutely don't want to do anything like that at all.

I do want to provide forgejo packages in Debian so it's available and
users can choose to use it, but I don't want to provide a forgejo
service in Debian.

Regards,
Daniel

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)