On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > I think I'm with Matthias on this - make distcheck shows plenty of > issues that aren't going to affect anyone in reality, and no maintainer > wants to be pestered every day about the latest random thing that's > gotten screwed up. > > If people want to distribute snapshots from CVS, then "make dist" will > do fine. If the resulting tarball can't be built, then *they* can report > *that* issue. That's going to involve a lot less problems reported and > maintainers can be confident that by fixing the issues they're actually > doing something useful.
I don't quite agree here. 'make distcheck' mainly checks things like building in a different directory, or from readonly source base, which are quite useful to packagers and distro people. And the point is that, if a package passes make distcheck, then any future break would be a one-line fix of adding a file to the Makefile or something like that. If fixing it is a bigger problem, like redoing part of the build system in another way, then that would better be fixed sooner than just before the release. > Cheers, > Mark. --behdad http://behdad.org/ _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
