Re: [cocci] Flatpak package for Coccinelle

Victor Gambier
2024-11-05T14:34:21Z

Hi everyone,

As Julia mentioned above, I started working on Coccinelle earlier this
fall. I'd love to help package Coccinelle into Flatpak! I've read the
discussion above, but some time has passed since then and things might
have changed, so, in short: how can I help? Are you still interested?
What questions remain?

On 6/25/24 11:38, Jan Tojnar wrote:
> Personally, I am fond of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike for
> websites.
>
> (...)
>
> Also it might depend on the agreement you have with your employer. I am
> not a lawyer but I believe that typically, the company/university owns
> the copyright (well economic rights, at least) to works you produced
> “on their time” so they might need to agree to any relicensing.
>
> It might be easier to write a new description if you are not sure about
> the legal status.
(2) Regarding the license, CC should be fine (in my opinion). You're
right that this depends on the employer. From what I understand, at
INRIA this question has occasionally come up in the last 2 years and we
still don't have a clear answer. In the mean time, using the text as-is
with the CC is fine.
> The procedure consists of updating the version and release date in the
> metainfo file (the following line):
>
> <release version="1.2" date="2024-03-28" type="stable"/>
>
> I would say it is easy to forget and pretty amenable to automation.
(3) I can update the release script to update the version of the
AppStream metadata, that does seem like the best solution.
> (4) is already implemented in
> https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/pull/370
(4) If I understand correctly, you've already written the manifest, and
this is something we only have to do once, right? If the license was the
last thing you needed, feel free to mark your PR as ready and I'll
review/merge it.
> (5) would require introduction of GitHub/GitLab CI configuration file
> into the repository and perhaps some configuration changes to
> GitHub/GitLab repository (regarding storage of built assets).
(5) That integration seems nice. I'd like to improve the way we do CI
and releases, and this seems like a nice addition. We might have to
think about whether or not master is, as it stands, the best branch for
this. What would this look like in practice from the point of view of
the user? Would they just download a .flatpak file from the
GitHub/GitLab releases page?
> Cheers,
> Jan