On Feb 6, 2012, at 20:04 , Jan Lehnardt wrote: > > On Feb 4, 2012, at 02:43 , Paul Davis wrote: > >> Doing some traveling but quick thoughts inline: >> >> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> I have a 1.2.0 release ready to go, but there are a few problems that need >>> fixing before I am prepared to ship. >>> >>> Comparing our source to the release artefact, I get: >>> >>> Only in 1.2.0/src/mochiweb: mochiweb.app.src >> >> IIRC, I think I noticed that we're not generating a mochiweb.app from >> this file. It needs to be there and we need to generate it and there's >> a pattern. Just needs a rule in the make file and an EXTRA_DIST entry >> for the .app I think. > > Makefile.am has: > > %.app: %.app.in > cp $< $@ > > I'd suggest this looks like we are not using mochiweb.app.src at all > and we could either delete it or keep to keep file-parity with upstream. > > (file-parity interlude, I'd prefer to keep upstream directories in as > much of the original shape as possible to make upgrades more obvious > and less error prone) > >>>> Only in 1.2.0/src/mochiweb: mochiweb_request_tests.erl >> >> This can probably be deleted outright assuming make check doesn't try >> and use it (and I don't think it does). > > File-parity. I'd say we keep it. > > >>>> Only in apache-couchdb-1.2.0/src/snappy: Makefile.in >> >> No idea what this business is. An artefact of the snappy build? Just delete >> it? > > Makefile.in gets generated by ./bootstrap and is used by ./configure > to produce Makefile. We should absolutely keep this and put it in EXTRA_DIST. > >>>> Only in 1.2.0/src/snappy/google-snappy: AUTHORS >> >> EXTRA_DIST? Delete? > > File-parity. I'd say we keep it. > >>>> Only in 1.2.0/src/snappy/google-snappy: COPYING >> >> We should look on whether we keep this or not. There's probably ASF >> guidelines on what to do here. I'm guessing either delete it or add it >> to NOTICE in the root. > > NOTICE carries the ASF mandated entry for Snappy, so we are covered on > that end. The other question is file-parity again, I'd say we keep it. > >>>> Only in apache-couchdb-1.2.0/src/snappy/google-snappy: >>>> snappy-stubs-public.h >> >> Not sure why this is made by bootstrap. Might be a valid reason, might >> just need the generation to happen during make instead. > > It looks like it makes some assumptions about types. I'm not the expert > but assuming the values the packager puts in are the same for everybody > is dangerous at best. So yes, I agree, a Make-ification is in order. > Can we fix this upstream (a brief search didn't suggest any existing > solutions).
In fact, snappy-stubs-public.h is produced at ./configure time by us, so we should not ship this. Cheers Jan -- >>> >>> >>> The only time this should ever happen is when the file is used by the >>> bootstrap process, or Git, and can be discarded after bootstrapping. >>> Clearly, none of these files pass that requirement. Which means that we >>> should be shipping them in the source tarball. Probably by adding them to >>> EXTRA_DIST or something. >>> >>> For lines that start: >>> >>> Only in apache-couchdb-1.2.0 >>> >>> >>> The only time this should ever happen is when the file is created by the >>> bootstrap process, or need to be made on the assumption that our users will >>> not be able to make them, as is the case for our man pages. Clearly, none >>> of these files pass that requirement. Now, I checked the snappy makefile, >>> and it looks like we're shipping these generated files on purpose, which is >>> very strange. >>> >>> So, over to you, Paul, I guess. Want to weigh in on these? They need fixing >>> on master as well as the release branch. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> N >
