IRCaBot 2.1.0
GPLv3 © acetone, 2021-2022
#i2p-dev
/2023/10/01
@eyedeekay
&eche|on
&kytv
&zzz
+R4SAS
+RN
+RN_
+T3s|4
+acetone
+dr|z3d
+hk
+orignal
+postman
+weko
+wodencafe
An0nm0n
Arch
Danny
DeltaOreo
FreefallHeavens
Irc2PGuest21357
Irc2PGuest21881
Irc2PGuest58867
Leopold_
Nausicaa
Onn4l7h
Onn4|7h
Over
Sisyphus
Sleepy
Soni
T3s|4_
aargh2
anon2
b3t4f4c3
bak83
boonst
cancername
cumlord
dr4wd3
eyedeekay_bnc
hagen_
khb
not_bob_afk
plap
poriori
profetikla
r3med1tz-
rapidash
shiver_
solidx66
tr
u5657
uop23ip
w8rabbit
x74a6
anonymousmaybe i2p repo down
anonymousmaybe The following signatures were invalid: EXPKEYSIG 67ECE5605BCF1346 I2P Debian Package Repository <killyourtv@i2pmail.org>
anonymousmaybe Reading package lists... Done
anonymousmaybe W: GPG error: deb.i2p2.de bookworm InRelease: The following signatures were invalid: EXPKEYSIG 67ECE5605BCF1346 I2P Debian Package Repository <killyourtv@i2pmail.org>
anonymousmaybe E: The repository 'https://deb.i2p2.de bookworm InRelease' is not signed.
anonymousmaybe cc zzz eyedeekay
anonymousmaybe i think its a good a suggestion to stop the i2p repo for gnu/linux systems and start using flatpak instead or even flatpak/snap
anonymousmaybe this is compatible with all distros, no repo down headache
zzz rats we shouldn't have let that expire
zzz fell off my todo list
zzz I'll fix it but now it will take manual work
anonymousmaybe np, big cry for the repo users
zzz its happened before, and I had a reminder in my phone but I didn't get to it. It's a pain.
zzz I put a note on the repo homepage
anonymousmaybe considered using flatpak instead of this pain?
T3s|4 anonymousmaybe: not sure which path you're attempting to travel here, especially without clear 'pain avoidance' justification
anonymousmaybe T3s|4 if you upload your package to flathub, you wont maintain flathub servers
anonymousmaybe there is no i2p repository that user need to fix manually
anonymousmaybe if something need to updated then i2p push it to flathub then user update and get these updates with regular flatpak update
T3s|4 anonymousmaybe: thanks, and ^perhaps a helpful explanation to flathub / flatpak users. Not a user of either (straight up Arch testing repo / java user), so no way to test
dr|z3d anonymousmaybe: it's all very well suggesting alternative distribution methods, but they take time and effort and research to implement. are you volunteering to put a flatpak recipe together?
dr|z3d something along the lines of "i've done the work, here's a script to run that'll build you a flatpak installer and also upload to a repo of your choosing". if you've got something like that ready to go, your suggestions would be a lot more persuasive :)
eyedeekay Actually jpackage will do like 97% of it
eyedeekay Not that I'm saying we should, just that the thing that does what you said is like, a shell script that calls jpackage
dr|z3d I was trying to nudge anonymousmaybe to do more than sit on the sidelines, eyedeekay :)
zzz waiting for the new key to get to our website then I'll put instructions on the repo
zzz and no I didn't fix the dpkg warnings either
eyedeekay Thanks zzz
zzz you'll need to import the key while ssh'ed in before the release
zzz I also hit another snag I need eche's help for
anonymousmaybe dr|z3d i can do it but need upstream adoption, will not do it for the sake of fancy of it
dr|z3d put something together that we can use, ideally with ant integration so it's just another build target, it'll get used, either through an official release, or by users that pull the source and build for themselves.
dr|z3d either way, your efforts wouldn't be wasted time.
eyedeekay anonymousmaybe, it's just one of those million things I've figured out how to do at some point or another and shelved because more important things happened. I have hints if you want but it's basically make flatpak config file, generate jpackage, copy jpackage into flatpack, package.
eyedeekay Pretty much the same process as easy-install, just /nsis/flatpak/
anonymousmaybe issue is if a package pushed which build build by nonofficial user, it will take crazy time/effort to switch it to the original developers
anonymousmaybe eyedeekay you have remote server for pushing i2p flatpak which can be used as the official packaging?
eyedeekay But there's a mirror on my github
anonymousmaybe yeah but pushing it to the flathub while its not from the original devs, then switch it to the original devs = bad
anonymousmaybe you want to use your own flatpak repo not flathub?
eyedeekay I honestly don't care, just wanted to see if I could
anonymousmaybe yeah possible
eyedeekay Don't use this it's a mess, but it's a working flatpak repo
anonymousmaybe is i2p compatible wit xdg style?
anonymousmaybe this project for example stuck, unless they switch to xdg it wont be resolved with flatpak
eyedeekay It can be, you just have to configure the base dir and config dir at jpackage invocarion time to correspond to the xdg dirs
zzz anonymousmaybe, please test the instructions posted at deb.i2p2.de
zzz or anybody else?