search

matomo-org / matomo-package

Matomo release script (official package), and debian/ubuntu package (allows sysadmins to deploy Matomo within seconds using "apt-get install piwik -V")
28 stars 27 forks source link

No debian package since 3.13.6 #114

Closed nervo closed 3 years ago

nervo commented 4 years ago

Hello :)

Any chances to have last 3.14.* versions avaialble on debian repository ?

aureq commented 4 years ago

Hi @nervo

Thanks for you message and opening this issue. Let me share with you some extra details.

At the moment, when I create a new release (.deb) for Matomo, I power up a VM, ssh into it, update my local repo, update the changelog, generate the package, digitally sign it and check its compliance (lintian). Every now and then, the process breaks because of some new or removed files, new or removed dependencies, or something related to specific requirements or something has changed and the build script isn't able to deal with it correctly (or lintian complains about it). All of that is done during my personal time and I'm not compensated in any way.

Currently, I'm learning kubernetes and I have a local gitlab instance. The goal is to replace the process above with a nice CI/CD pipeline that's automatically triggered when Matomo releases a new version. While learning kubernetes has been (mostly) fun, it's also taking a lot of time. I'll do my best to catch up with the few missing version in the coming days.

If you have any experience with github, gitlab and how to trigger a pipeline, and you wish to donate some of your time, we would like to hear from you.

nervo commented 4 years ago

Dude, gitlab and kubernetes are sincerely good stuff, and i know what i'm talking about, trust me :) But you try to use a hammer to kill a fly ! Github actions and something like https://nfpm.goreleaser.com/ would be much simpler to implement and maintain !

For a first step, have you ever tried to dockerize your build process instead of using a vm ?

nomandera commented 3 years ago

I'll do my best to catch up with the few missing version in the coming days.

I applaud the efforts to address the workflow and streamline the process but can I politely ask an interim update happens.

aureq commented 3 years ago

@anoma I admire your ability to communicate with kindness and empathy. Thank you for that. I pushed 3.14.0 and 3.14.1

greedybro commented 3 years ago

Hi @aureq,

I'm sorry but I failed to find the 3.14.0 or 3.14.1 package on the debian repo -> https://debian.matomo.org/dists/piwik/main/binary-amd64/Packages

It is still pointing on the 3.13.6-1 version, am I missing something ? Thanks for the work !

nomandera commented 3 years ago

I am seeing a similar situation here with no apt upgrades available beyond 3.13.6-1.

Given the time period I think it is very unlikely this is a prorogation delay at this point.

@aureq any chance you can have a quick look at this

nomandera commented 3 years ago

Would it be possible to open this ticket again.

It is marked as closed but from what I can tell something has gone wrong with the publishing process and the repository is stuck at the June 20202 3.13.6-1 release.

mattab commented 3 years ago

Re-opening as requested. FYI: we're going to publish Matomo 4.0.0 stable in the next 48 hours :rocket:

mattab commented 3 years ago

@aureq Matomo 4.0.0 is released. As discussed we put the list of tickets fixed in the release notes (under the H2 title) at: https://github.com/matomo-org/matomo/releases/tag/4.0.0

mattab commented 3 years ago

FYI Matomo 4.0.1 is released: https://github.com/matomo-org/matomo/releases/tag/4.0.1

nomandera commented 3 years ago

This is excellent news !

The downside is that all the PR around V4 is making it quite hard (and a little embarrassing) for me that not only are we stuck on a V3 release from June but also because of https://github.com/matomo-org/matomo-package/issues/99 I cant even provide a timeline for when I can update to V4.

I really hate to press the issue but I really do think its time to address this. Even if no solution is forthcoming some kind of plan for a outline timeline would really help.

mattab commented 3 years ago

@anoma i suppose a good solution would be to make the release process of the debian package fully automated. recently we reated a similar issue to automate the packaging of Matomo releases in https://github.com/matomo-org/matomo-package/issues/119 (this issue doesn't cover the debian package). Maybe you could create an issue similar to it for the debian package, and if you are able to help further, open a pull request to implement the solution? @aureq is quite busy at the moment at this work but he might be able to help review the PR.

aureq commented 3 years ago

@anoma @nervo

Regarding version 3.13.6-1, it has been published here. On a server I maintain, I just upgraded to Matomo version 3.13.6.

However, no newer versions have been published into the repository despite my previous work.

I'm investigating the issue.

aureq commented 3 years ago

Ok, so I confirm the .deb files have been uploaded as expected but haven't been processed.

-rw-r--r-- 1 piwik-package piwik-package   144792 Jun  5 09:31 matomo_3.13.6-1.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 piwik-package piwik-package     1426 Jun  5 09:31 matomo_3.13.6-1.dsc
-rw-r--r-- 1 piwik-package piwik-package     5588 Jun  5 09:31 matomo_3.13.6-1_amd64.buildinfo
-rw-r--r-- 1 piwik-package piwik-package 11854868 Jun  5 09:32 matomo_3.13.6-1_all.deb
-rw-r--r-- 1 piwik-package piwik-package     2424 Jun  5 09:32 matomo_3.13.6-1_amd64.changes
-rw-r--r-- 1 piwik-package piwik-package   146005 Oct  3 10:38 matomo_3.14.0-1.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 piwik-package piwik-package     1426 Oct  3 10:38 matomo_3.14.0-1.dsc
-rw-r--r-- 1 piwik-package piwik-package     5595 Oct  3 10:38 matomo_3.14.0-1_amd64.buildinfo
-rw-r--r-- 1 piwik-package piwik-package 12364328 Oct  3 10:38 matomo_3.14.0-1_all.deb
-rw-r--r-- 1 piwik-package piwik-package     2424 Oct  3 10:38 matomo_3.14.0-1_amd64.changes
-rw-r--r-- 1 piwik-package piwik-package     1426 Oct  3 10:46 matomo_3.14.1-1.dsc
-rw-r--r-- 1 piwik-package piwik-package     5595 Oct  3 10:46 matomo_3.14.1-1_amd64.buildinfo
-rw-r--r-- 1 piwik-package piwik-package   145167 Oct  3 10:46 matomo_3.14.1-1.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 piwik-package piwik-package 12364320 Oct  3 10:47 matomo_3.14.1-1_all.deb
-rw-r--r-- 1 piwik-package piwik-package     2424 Oct  3 10:47 matomo_3.14.1-1_amd64.changes

@mattab Looking further and it appears inoticoming wasn't running. The server has been restarted about 155 days (July 2nd) and the cron service didn't process the @reboot crontab entry that starts the service (that used to work just fine). It's possible the cron service got upgraded to a version that doesn't support @reboot.

aureq commented 3 years ago

For now, 3.14.1-1 is published but it's broken.

PHP Warning:  require(/usr/share/matomo/vendor/composer/../../LegacyAutoloader.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /usr/share/matomo/vendor/composer/autoload_real.php on line 73
PHP Fatal error:  require(): Failed opening required '/usr/share/matomo/vendor/composer/../../LegacyAutoloader.php' (include_path='/usr/share/matomo/vendor/pear/pear_exception:/usr/share/matomo/vendor/pear/console_getopt:/usr/share/matomo/vendor/pear/pear-core-minimal/src:/usr/share/matomo/vendor/pear/archive_tar:.:/usr/share/php:/usr/share/pear') in /usr/share/matomo/vendor/composer/autoload_real.php on line 73

I'm checking what's happening here... But so far it looks like LegacyAutoloader.php is missing in the .deb.

aureq commented 3 years ago

So, looks like including LegacyAutoloader.php into the archive does the trick. Version 3.14.1-2 is now live here. I did a quick upgrade from the broken 3.14.1-1 and the installation went smoothly. The site I maintain loads normally as well.

On Matomo 4, there's more work required given the dependency requirements and what Debian makes available to its users. I'll open a separate issue for that version.

If you have any issues with Matomo 3.14, please let me know in the comments below.

mattab commented 3 years ago

Hello everyone, Thanks for your patience, let's continue the discussion in this other issue for now, where we're looking for a new maintainer for the debian package: #131