[Pkg-shadow-devel] out of my depth
balint at balintreczey.hu
Thu Dec 1 13:57:13 UTC 2016
2016-12-01 8:25 GMT+01:00 Mike Frysinger <vapier at gentoo.org>:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 6:45 PM, Bálint Réczey wrote:
>> 2016-11-27 9:02 GMT+01:00 Mike Frysinger:
>>> On 25 Nov 2016 13:42, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 02:23:56AM +0100, Bálint Réczey wrote:
>>>> > Please don't use make dist.
>>>> Huh. That's the first time I've heard that suggestion.
>>> it's a bad suggestion in this case. some people try to be super strict
>>> in that the releases are always reproducible from git. while that might
>>> work for some projects, it doesn't for ones that use a generated build
>>> system like autotools. in order to pull it off, you'd have to actually
>>> commit the generated output (e.g. "configure" and "config.h.in" and all
>>> the rest) to git which is an even worse idea.
>> I may not have been clear enough, but I had no intention to suggest
>> storing generated files in git. This would be a bad idea. I would like to ask
>> for basing the Debian package on a tarball _not_ containing generated
>> files such as Makefile.in.
> i have no opinion at all how Debian wants to maintain their .deb sources
This thread was about that question.
>> Reviewing changes when autogenerated files pollute the diff is harder
>> and shadow is an important package.
> yes, but as a general thing, always rebuilding autotools from scratch
> is kind of wasteful and can be a pain when the sources aren't kept up
> to date (and you try to use newer autotools which have new
> warnings/errors). i'm not familiar with how Debian typically builds
> things though, so maybe that's "normal".
>>> so when making shadow releases, you should be using `make distcheck`.
>>> you can then attach the tarball to the github page under the releases
>> Why? Who can't use the git archive output?
> forcing all users of shadow to build autotools from scratch is
> fundamentally wrong. it defeats the entire purpose of autotools. if
> *you* don't want to use them, then fine, don't, but Debian is not the
> entire ecosystem.
Please open an issue at upstream if you really need ./configure
generated for you:
> make sure you don't conflate "what's good or makes sense for Debian"
> with "this is standard open source release behavior". while the
Vast majority of the GitHub projects only tag their releases and let GitHub
generate the tarball for releases. I would prefer having those tarballs signed
but I don't miss the pre-generated files from them. It seems this is the new
standard and I'm happy with that.
> shadow upstream git repo is utilizing Debian infra now, it doesn't
> mean the shadow sources and release behavior should be specific to
Upstream repo is on GitHub. The mailing list can stay on alioth but I
the old outdated home page to be retired or updated with accurate information.
I think the the cleanest solution would be keeping the mailing list
discussions and moving all upstream activity to GitHub.
The svn repo is not active, it should be set to read-only, too, IMO.
More information about the Pkg-shadow-devel