F-Droid inclusion

[Poussinou]

Hi,

Since this app is GNU GPL v3 licensed, are you considering the fact to add it to F-Droid? There is a strong community behind.

You can find some documentation here.

Otherwise, if you don't want to work on the inclusion of this app by yourself, would it be ok for you if someone else do it for you?

[danvratil]

Hi,

thanks for the suggestion, having the app on F-Droid would be great! No promise on when I'll have time to check out the inclusion guide and go through the process, so feel free (or anyone else) to go ahead with it. I'll be more than happy to assist if something needs to be fixed or changed in the app to be accepted by F-Droid, just let me know here or open a new ticket.

[Poussinou]

I opened a Request For Packaging here. Our bot will scan your source code, and somebody will probably take care of this.

[licaon-kter]

@danvratil
The issues that I see:

• you tag betas (with the same pattern) too, making F-Droid pull them as stable
• you named releases as 0.26 (beta X) but the actual versionName was just 0.26
• then given the versionName above, you can't separate betas from stable
• also you can't separate beta 1 from beta 2 since you named them both 0.26
• F-Droid updater would error out as the versionName would be the same but for a different versionCode

[danvratil]

@licaon-kter thanks for the feedback. The current schema indeed is a mess :)

So, should I not git tag betas at all, or should I use an explicit pattern like 0.26-beta1, 0.26-beta2 etc. that can be excluded in some F-Droid rules?

Regarding the version names, I'll unify them across git tags, versionName and Github Releases, adopting the 0.26 (major.minor) schema.

If this is OK, I'll do a new release tonight adopting the new schema.

[licaon-kter]

should I use an explicit pattern like 0.26-beta1, 0.26-beta2

Yes please, you can delete & retag

Regarding the version names

As you wish, but never use the same, beta1 is 26, beta2 should be 27, release would be 28, so on...