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

Re: Best practice for cleaning autotools-generated files?

* Neil Williams <codehelp@debian.org> schrieb:

> Just as there are packages which cannot be automatically built just
> from the VCS checkout and ./autogen.sh, hence the need for tarballs
> where that work has already been done. 

The interesting question is: why arent those packages buildable
directly from VCS ? Perhaps some concrete examples ?

> > At least, for autoconf packages, which follow the rules I've written
> > down here:
> > 
> >     http://www.metux.de/index.php/de/component/content/article/1-software-entwicklung/57-rules-for-distro-friendly-packages.html
> > 
> > that would be the case.
> Those aren't rules, those are your preferences which you wrote
> yourself. 

These *are* rules (more precisely: requirements), applied to my
OSS-QM releases. When upstream doesnt meet them, I'll fix it there.

> Try that with any of my upstream packages and I'll laugh at you, then
> ignore you and then I'll add you to the killfile. Please stop this
> one-man campaign. It's already sounding tired and repetitive.

You wanna tell me to stop my projects ?!

> > Actually, once I fixed packages to this, the individual distro
> > builder pkg configuration is reduced to nothing more than the
> > package name, list of available features and their enable/disable
> > flags, and the individual target config for the package just
> > tells the version and selected features. That's it.
> > 
> > (see attached files)
> Gentoo have been trying that for quite some time but it still needs a
> wide range of specialist tools to keep it working. 

No, they didnt really. They're essentially going the same way as
virtually any other distros do: manual creation of text-based patches
and trying to work around bad upstreams in the package management's
build files, instead of fixing the actual source.
> > That's not necessary. Having a project, where people like distro
> > package maintainers come together (at least for a bunch of packages
> > and growing it later) and maintain stabelized and distro-friendly
> > downstream branches. (oh, that's what OSS-QM is meant for ;-o)
> Then I'm glad I've got nothing to do with OSS-QM and I have no
> intention of modifying any of my upstream packages to meet your
> personal preferences, even if you continue to dress them up as
> requirements.

Seems like you still didn't get the idea. As upstream, you don't 
need to do *anything*. That's the whole purpose of OSS-QM: leave
the upstream alone and do the redundant fixes (which distros still
are doing alone, just for themselves, again and again) in one
dedicated project where distros then can pull from.

 Enrico Weigelt, metux IT service -- http://www.metux.de/

 phone:  +49 36207 519931  email: weigelt@metux.de
 mobile: +49 151 27565287  icq:   210169427         skype: nekrad666
 Embedded-Linux / Portierung / Opensource-QM / Verteilte Systeme

Reply to: