On 04/26/2011 11:02 AM, Dave Neary wrote: >> Yes, I would be happy to help, thanks for asking. >> What have you been using so far for generating the tarball? > > Back in the Wengo days, I did a fresh svn check-out with "svn export", > tarred that up with tar cfz, and then tested that I could build from > that with tar xfz && cmake && make. The tarballs were bigger than they > needed to be, because we shipped with 3rd party libraries.
Oh, so it has always done "by hand", I see. > Mercurial has a rather nifty "hg archive" command which appears to do > exactly the same thing - you give it a filename as an argument and it > automatically archives into the file stripping the metadata. "hg archive > ../qutecom-2.2.1.tar.gz" will magically do the right thing. > > The question is whether we should include all the 3rd party libraries > when making a .tar.gz - it enables people on Windows to build without > having to download a bunch of stuff, but makes the job slightly harder > for packagers on Linux. I agree with you. So you would agree to have a smaller .tar.gz suitable for Linux build? That would be a very good idea. In fact the current source tarball is not suitable for Debian because it contains a lot of non-free stuff in the Debian sense [1]. For that reason we are actually repackaging it. Give that we are repackaging it, we also delete all the stuff that is not needed (3rd party libraries that we are not compiling internally, like curl, glib, openssl, etc...). For this reason, in the Debian package we have a script [2] to do this automatically (either from the the release tarball or a mercurial snapshot). We could use a customized version of that script. How does it sound? Thanks, Ludovico [1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines [2] http://git.debian.org/?p=pkg-voip/qutecom.git;a=blob;f=debian/get-orig-source.sh _______________________________________________ QuteCom-dev mailing list QuteCom-dev@lists.qutecom.org http://lists.qutecom.org/mailman/listinfo/qutecom-dev
