[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Hidden timeskew problems might show up on 2.6.x kernels

(Sorry for my slow reaction, RL was quite busy lately.)

Thank you all for your comments. A few notes:

On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 08:29:12AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: [1]
> Why didn't you use AM_MAINTAINER_MODE?

Because I believe one should change as little as possible. Enabling it
requires me to re-run automake/autoconf, with possibly unexpected
results. I know some believe it's better to _do_ run automake/autoconf
on build-time, but at present which one is better is highly debated over
and over again, and it is not in policy. See also my other message about
this in [2].

The compromise-solution (running autotools by maintainer) has the, imho
severe, disadvantage of not in any standard way documenting which
autotools versions to use. Maybe it's a good idea to determine which of
the three possibilities Debian as a projects wants (or wether it remains
to be up to the Maintainer), and put that in policy? I'll put it on my
TODO and get back at this once sarge is released, if I then still feel
this needs to get adressed.

On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 10:58:19AM +0000, Magos?nyi ?rp?d wrote: [3]
> A levelez?m azt hiszi, hogy Jeroen van Wolffelaar a k?vetkez?eket ?rta:
> > It happens that the generated files _are part of the source_. The
> > only
> Well, let's see the definition of source.
> From the GPL:
> "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
> making modifications to it."
> The term "the preferred" and engineering practices imply that
> there is _one_ source, and anything which is generated from it
> is not source.

I stand corrected, I (now) agree that, at least in GPL'd works,
generated configure's and such are not part of the source as the GPL

But, in how far should the tools to generate those files be GPL too?  I
tend to believe all tools should be GPL; _and_ available the same way as
the package itself.

In that case, GPL mandates that somehow you should be able to regenerate
the generated files by yourself using GPL'd tools. However there is the
practical problem of knowing the exact right versions etc (analog to
needing exact same gcc and other tools to create byte-for-byte the same
binary as was generated upstream). Indeed mandating regeneration of
everything at build time makes sure the DD researches the correct
versions and such, which one might consider a good thing.

On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 07:37:14AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: [4]
> Swapping them around in the diff is not realy an option. Next time you
> build the package you probably forget to swap them around. Instead
> touch the files in the right order in the rules file, as explained in
> the docs.

I have choosen this option (which is also documented as a possible
solution in /usr/share/doc/autotools-dev/README.Debian.gz).

On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 08:10:59PM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote: [5]
> I'm not surprised you missed it; after all, it's documented almost
> everywhere I'd think of looking, mentioned on this mailing list at least
> once a week because someone encounters the same problem and the
> resolution of dozens of bug reports.

Thanks for politely pointing this out :), the only reason I started this
thread is because I found it noteworthy that 2.6 kernels will guarantee
to hit you when you've got a timestamp-fuckedup diff, while 2.4, wether
on m64k or amd-64, will not reliably fail on you.

Please do note that my original post[6] did not in any way ask help
about this problem, since I was already aware of AM_MAINTAINER_MODE, and
other possible solutions such as touching or autotools-at-build-time.
However I did appreciated possible solutions with their rationales,
since it did give me some new insights on this issue, especially about
what is considered source.

Thank you all for your comments and help,


[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/debian-devel-200401/msg01172.html
[2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/debian-devel-200401/msg01128.html
[3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/debian-devel-200401/msg01191.html
[4] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/debian-devel-200401/msg01166.html
[5] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/debian-devel-200401/msg01269.html
[6] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/debian-devel-200401/msg01075.html

Jeroen van Wolffelaar
+31-30-253 4499

Attachment: pgpgj2PW0pwhC.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: