Remove the workflow for building an ubuntu 14.04 Docker image. This is
no longer needed since the AppImage is now built on 16.04.
Signed-off-by: Michael Keller <github@ike.ch>
Suppress errors in the 'Add Artifact Comment' workflow if there are no
artifacts produced by the pull request workflow - this gets rid of
follow-on error messages when a pull request workflow encounters a build
error.
Signed-off-by: Michael Keller <mikeller@042.ch>
Make multiple improvements to the existing workflows:
- create a shared custom action to deal with version number tracking
and generation;
- use this action to add the branch name to the version for pull
request builds;
- create a shared workflow for all debian-ish builds to avoid re-use
by copy / paste;
- remove potential security risks by eliminating the use of
pre-evaluated expressions (`${{ ... }}`) inside scripts;
- update outdated GitHub action versions;
- improve the consistency by renaming scripts acording to have a `.sh`
extension;
- improve naming of generated artefacts for pull requests to include
the correct version.
@dirkh: Unfortunately this is potentially going to break builds when it is
merged, as there is no good way to 'test' a merge build short of
merging.
We'll just have to deal with the fallout of it in a follow-up pull
request.
Signed-off-by: Michael Keller <github@ike.ch>
Update the linux AppImage build to use ubuntu 16.04, and simplify it to
a single workflow running on a vanilla docker image.
This still uses the upload-artifact@v3 Action that will be EOL in
November 2024, because v4 relies on node 20 which has an unmet glibc
dependency in ubuntu 16.04. But this workflow can be updated to run on
ubuntu 18.04 by a simple search / replace and disabling some 16.04
specific PPAs.
@dirkh, @probonopd: I have moved this here from #4183 to be able to
review and discuss it without the noise of the workflow cleanup.
The workflow now also publishes the AppImage as an artifact on pull
request builds, available under Checks / Details / Summary.
Signed-off-by: Michael Keller <github@ike.ch>
Move the Qt resources required for the build for MacOS and iOS into
GitHub, into their own repositories. This removes the need to publish
them on an external file server and download them from there for every
build.
It will also make it easier for contributors to update these resources
if needed.
Signed-off-by: Michael Keller <github@ike.ch>
Do a few things:
- add a build for Debian trixie (as discussed in #4182);
- add a build for Ubuntu 24.04;
- rename the build definitions to match the build names;
- update the artifact uploads to use a non-deprecated version of the
action, and name the artifact appropriately;
- remove a stale workflow file.
Signed-off-by: Michael Keller <github@ike.ch>
Update the version of Qt that is used in the CICD build for MacOS to
5.15.13. This version is showing promise for building binaries that work
on Apple silicon.
Signed-off-by: Michael Keller <github@ike.ch>
Do some housekeeping and cleanup on the build scripts for Windows:
- remove Windows 32bit builds as support for this has been removed from
the mxe container;
- fix some warnings in the smtk2ssrf installer configuration;
- sanitise the output colour of the smtk2ssrf build script;
- add a docker based build script for the Windows installers;
- remove outdated and deprecated documentation and scripts.
Signed-off-by: Michael Keller <mikeller@042.ch>
Add a build for subsurface-downloader to the CI pipeline. The artifact
is currently not used, but this will ensure pull requests breaking the
downloader are spotted before they are merged.
Signed-off-by: Michael Keller <mikeller@042.ch>
Add a file containing the release title (derived from the pull request
title / commit message) to CICD releases - this is so that it will be
able to pick this up by the process updating the release pages on our
webserver, and show a list of the last few changes for each release.
Signed-off-by: Michael Keller <mikeller@042.ch>
While for the other platforms we can simply copy our binaries (maybe
after signing them), for Fedora and Ubuntu we have to trigger fresh
builds.
The most logical way that I could think of to do this was to push the
same commit corresponding with the intended current release into a
branch named 'current' and have that trigger Copr and Launchpad builds
that post into our release repos.
So 'master' keeps moving forward, keeps creating new build numbers.
At some point we pick a build number that we want to be the next
'current' release. We then update the current branch to the commit that
corresponds to that build number and push the current branch which
triggers new builds in the correct repos on Copr and Launchpad.
This commit removes the silly 'push' argument from the make-package
scripts (after all, they are used to push those packages to the
respective build services) and instead use the branch name as argument
to those scripts - allowing us to pick which repo to push into.
Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel <dirk@hohndel.org>
Move the GitHub Action that builds the Windows artefacts to use the new
subsurface/mxe-build:3.1.0 container.
Also rename references to the old container in scripts and
documantation.
Signed-off-by: Michael Keller <github@ike.ch>
Add a GitHub action that builds the docker image to run builds for the
Windows (MXE) version of Subsurface.
Also update the MXE image Dockerfile to the latest version of MXE, and
add a patch to use a current version of mdbtools.
Configure GitHub actions that do not build docker images to not trigger
on changes to the contents of `scripts/docker/`.
Signed-off-by: Michael Keller <github@ike.ch>
It is very strange that in some yaml files the $(<release-version) construct
works just fine, but in others it evaluates to an empty string, even though the
file is there an has the correct content.
Attempting to get more debugging info and also use a different expression to
extract the information.
Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel <dirk@hohndel.org>
That was the whole point of the previous change.
Also, run the build number creation on a pull request as well (at least for a
while) so we don't need to create new releases in order to test that part of
the process).
Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel <dirk@hohndel.org>
In order to make it easier to see what's happening inside get-atomic-buildnr.sh
write the result to a file that can be read by the caller. Not quite as
elegant, but hopefully more practical to see what's going wrong when no new
build number is created.
Make sure that post-releasenotes is successfull by actually posting a release
artifact (apparently the gh release action otherwise quietly fails).
Try to ensure we find the Android APK when uploading to the release.
Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel <dirk@hohndel.org>
Some experimentation showed what should have been obvious. The release
information is additive. So it's enough if ONE of the actions creates release
notes, all the others can simply add additional release artifacts.
To make this more obvious, this commit creates a new action that does nothing
but create the release notes and publish the release. Since it really doesn't
do anything else, it's likely to be the quickest to complete, but that doesn't
matter - the last action that has a body or body_path in the gh-release action
determines the release notes. And we now have exactly one action that does so.
Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel <dirk@hohndel.org>
