On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 11:42:16 +0100 Tomas Cech <tc...@suse.cz> said:
> Hi all,
>
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 08:30:47PM +1000, David Seikel wrote:
> >On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 11:19:15 +0100 Sebastian Dransfeld
> ><s...@tango.flipp.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 11/15/2012 11:00 AM, David Seikel wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 17:53:06 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
> >> > <ras...@rasterman.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 17:59:18 +1000 David Seikel <onef...@gmail.com>
> >> >> said:
> >> >>
> >> >>> Simon even mentioned that it's his work system that has this
> >> >>> problem. It's very likely that some company provided systems are
> >> >>> locked down to specific versions of development tools for the
> >> >>> companies own reasons. Say for instance to provide a common
> >> >>> development environment for all the developers. He might not be
> >> >>> allowed to upgrade automake.
> >> >>
> >> >> you dont need to be root to upgrade it. don't be silly. if you're a
> >> >> developer you can happily upgrade automake all you like - as long
> >> >> as whatever you want to upgrade doesn't need root privs (setuid
> >> >> root for example), you can do it.
> >> >
> >> > I did not mention root. Could be "locked down" based on the boss
> >> > saying "Thou shalt use version X, and only version X, on pain of
> >> > being fired.".
> >>
> >> So you get fired for installing automake-1.11 in $HOME, but not for
> >> installing efl from svn?
> >
> >Depends on the boss / management. A large enough percentage are known
> >for making crazy decisions like that, so you have to keep that in mind.
> >
> >For all we know his job might require him to build EFL SVN on a stock
> >Ubuntu 10.10 install. shrugs
>
> I don't think that Simon will be fired because of this :)
>
> You can just take it that you'll lose another 4 targets (SLE 11
> SP{1,2} {i586, x86_64}) for regular build with different library
> versions dependencies. Nothing more.
why? there is no need to use automake at all. use the released tarballs that
have everything generated already. that was my original point. if its packages,
then no autotools are needed. if packagers are running autotools then they
either are not doing what SHOULD be done - which is using releases, (and doing
a shortcut and just using svn), or they use tarballs and re-run autogen again
which is a big no-no - never do that.
> You can also consider adding this requirement to README file. That is
> one of the output these builds should provide.
it's not a requirement of the output. output REQUIRES no autotools at all.
> Since autopoo is build requirement and not system requirement (e.g.
it is NOT a build requirement. it is a DEVELOPER requirement. if you are
developer who works ON E/EFL and GENERATES the tarballs (does make dist/make
distcheck etc.). THEN you need it. ONLY people who can't use releases need
autotools. ONLY them. no one else. that's why we do releases. that's HOW
autotool are designed, intended and DOCUMENTED to work. if you are packaging
and re-running autogen.sh... stop now. you've been doing it wrong for a long
time.
:)
> BuildRequire x Require in spec file), I believe we can just add it to
> build system from other than distribution source to fix it.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Tomas Cech
> Sleep_Walker
--
------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" --------------
The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) ras...@rasterman.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitor your physical, virtual and cloud infrastructure from a single
web console. Get in-depth insight into apps, servers, databases, vmware,
SAP, cloud infrastructure, etc. Download 30-day Free Trial.
Pricing starts from $795 for 25 servers or applications!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/zoho_dev2dev_nov
_______________________________________________
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
