> -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Leech [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 9:35 PM > To: Dev, Vasu > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Open-FCoE] [PATCH] fcoe-utils: automake fixes for > dist/distcheck > > On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 01:54:42AM +0000, Dev, Vasu wrote: > > > > > > I thought I'd give make distcheck a try on fcoe-utils and see if it > > > produced a working release. It didn't, so here are some fixes for that. > > > > > > Missing header files added to git are included in the release archive. > > > > > > The systemd unit files are marked dist_DATA so they get included, > > > otherwise data files are assumed to be generated at build time and > > > left out of the release. > > > > > > A few other missing doc files are added to dist_noinst_DATA. > > > > > > The manual rules for handling bash completion files are replaced > > > with dist_DATA definitions letting automake handle generating rules. > > > > > > Any change of applying build system fixes, and getting a new tag and > > > release tarball anytime in the near future? > > > > > > > I announced last year of doing away with upstream tar ball release > > and in fact when we had it, then also it was simply tar of three > > open-fcoe user tools git trees instead of using distcheck, so I won't > > be surprised if this doesn't work for other two user tools git trees but any > case good to fix all three git repos. > > Ah, I knew the kernel code wasn't using a separate tree anymore but I guess I > missed the bit about not doing user-space releases. > > libhbaapi/libhbalinux look to have some minor autotools issues, I can send a > patch if you want. >
Always, that would be good. > > I'm not sure if we need tags but sure user tools version bump make > > sense and I'm thinking of using same for tag instead of we used to > > have tag every kernel cycle even when no change to user tools. > > Yeah, the kernel version tags aren't all that useful - I keep deleting them > locally so they don't mess with git-describe. I get that Rob was trying to > keep > the same cadence as the kernel releases when there were active changes > going on. > > fcoe-utils is now 33 patches ahead of the last tag, with the bulk of those > being in git for over a year. I just thought it would be nice to bump the > version to 1.0.30 and tag it, maybe put out a tarball. I don't expect this > to be > a frequent thing. > Yes looks like won't be frequent. All good suggestions, I agree with all and doing tarball release along any major version bump makes sense given that it should be infrequent. Thanks again Chris for active improvements, Vasu > > I'll do this after known recent open fipvlan issues gets fixed. > > Cool, whenever you think the tree is in a good state for it. > > Thanks, > > Chris _______________________________________________ fcoe-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.open-fcoe.org/mailman/listinfo/fcoe-devel
