[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3301] xz compressed tarballs

[Marko Lindqvist]

Update of patch #3301 (project freeciv):

  Status:  Ready For Test => Done   
 Assigned to:None => cazfi  
 Open/Closed:Open => Closed 


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3301] xz compressed tarballs

[Marko Lindqvist]

Update of patch #3301 (project freeciv):

 Planned Release: => 3.0.0  


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3301] xz compressed tarballs

[Marko Lindqvist]

Follow-up Comment #12, patch #3301 (project freeciv):

> Any reason not to port the bz2/zip automake changes back to
> S2_3? They'd save a manual step in future 2.3.x releases.

How many more releases you expect from S2_3? Bugfixes flow in quite slowly
already. Would we take risks and do work in porting & testing .tar.bz2 and
.zip creation on S2_3 to save work in just one or two releases?

> Is automake 1.8 an onerous requirement? It only affects people
> building from svn or regenerating configure etc. Do these
> specific changes affect anyone who doesn't actually run "make
> dist"?

 It doesn't matter if user ever actually runs "make dist", it's the generating
support for it in Makefiles that set the automake requirement. So anyone
running autogen.sh would need at least automake 1.8, older ones would error
out for unknown init parameter. Strictly speaking our policy is not to bump
minimum requirements within release branch after first release. Anyone who has
built earlier version from that branch should be able to benefit from
bugfixes, most importantly potential security related ones. At the same time I
find it rather unlikely that anybody has ever built freeciv S2_3 with automake
older than 1.8, which itself is ancient already. 

> Perhaps we're relying on it already?

 Maybe, it's quite possible that older versions (or even 1.8) doesn't work.
Testing that has never been high enough priority in my TODO to get actually
done. Nobody has reported build failures...

> I notice a reference to
> "WANT_AUTOMAKE=1.8" at the top of autogen.sh (labelled as a
> Gentoo kludge).

 History of that one should be investigated. It can even be breaking things
more than fixing nowadays... In any case it's very old thing, but I'm not sure
what automake version it was meant to protect against (what was the default
gentoo automake that didn't produce correct results)? Was it upgrade from
default automake; "use 1.8 instead of 1.6", or downgrade; "use 1.8 instead of
1.10"?
I *do* know that the kludge predates changes that autogen.sh is able to check
against multiple tool versions instead of just default one.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

Re: [Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3301] xz compressed tarballs

[Gilles J. Seguin]

On Sat, 2012-07-07 at 14:40 +0200, Jacob Nevins wrote:
> ** Is automake 1.8 an onerous requirement? It only affects people building
> from svn or regenerating configure etc. Do these specific changes affect
> anyone who doesn't actually run "make dist"?

linux distributions are using the tarball produced by that "make dist".
i think you are right. it belong to release manager, that is you.

Packagers(like the one building *.RPM file) would appreciate to have
a release-note files.
* WANT_AUTOMAKE in autogen.sh is depreciated and will be remove in
  next release.

Which would be copy in the package release note of the packaged RPM.
ChangeLog is not something packagers want to read.

> *** (As current release manager, I seem to have automake 1.11.1, and am
> unlikely to regress.)

i agree.

but many distributions have compatibility automake
for fedora 17
automake14 -> Version : 1.4p6
automake17 -> Version : 1.7.9
which are probably older than you

> ** Perhaps we're relying on it already? I notice a reference to
> "WANT_AUTOMAKE=1.8" at the top of autogen.sh (labelled as a Gentoo kludge).



___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3301] xz compressed tarballs

[Jacob Nevins]

Follow-up Comment #11, patch #3301 (project freeciv):

So, on the general topic of which compression formats to distribute in future
(which this is probably the wrong place for, but never mind)...

> We're certainly late by introducing .tar.bz2 now when others 
> are already abandoning it.
We've actually been shipping .tar.bz2 since 1.5.3(!), apparently (see here
). Since 2.0.0 we've been
shipping all of .tar.gz, .tar.bz2, and .zip, the latter two presumably
produced by the mandraulic release process
.
(I had no idea it was so easy to get automake to do it for you -- as you can
probably tell, I don't really understand automake.)

And then there was
>>> there's always .zip as a fallback.
>> We have .zip?
> Yup.
...which resulted in patch #3331, now applied to S2_4/trunk.

So now we have:
* S2_3 building .tar.gz and mandraulic process to distribute .tar.bz2 and
.zip
* S2_4+ building all three from "make dist" (so users see nothing different)

So, two remaining questions:
* Back to comment #7: from 2.4, can we drop .tar.gz, and use .zip as the lo-fi
fallback?
** (Excepting the anti-ZIP arguments we've already heard.)
** My vague recollection of days when gzip/zip were scarce is that systems had
both, or neither (only "compress").
** Sourceforge download stats for 2.3.2:
*** .tar.bz2 (default for Unix browsers): 1300-2000/month (49% Linux, 35%
Windows, 10% unknown)
*** .zip (default for no-one): 320-480/month (86% Windows users, rest mostly
split evenly between Linux/Mac/unknown)
*** .tar.gz (default for no-one): 110-160/month (60% Linux, 26% Windows, 12%
Mac, 3% Unknown)
*** (For comparison, the Windows gtk installer is 7400-15200/month.)
** For me the bulk of the release time is uploading, so the fewer formats the
better. If .tar.gz is genuinely useful then I don't put my personal
convenience ahead of that of users, but if it's a waste of time I'd happily
drop it.
* Any reason not to port the bz2/zip automake changes back to S2_3? They'd
save a manual step in future 2.3.x releases.
** Is automake 1.8 an onerous requirement? It only affects people building
from svn or regenerating configure etc. Do these specific changes affect
anyone who doesn't actually run "make dist"?
*** (As current release manager, I seem to have automake 1.11.1, and am
unlikely to regress.)
** Perhaps we're relying on it already? I notice a reference to
"WANT_AUTOMAKE=1.8" at the top of autogen.sh (labelled as a Gentoo kludge).

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3301] xz compressed tarballs

[Marko Lindqvist]

Update of patch #3301 (project freeciv):

 Assigned to:   cazfi => None   


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3301] xz compressed tarballs

[Jacob Nevins]

Follow-up Comment #10, patch #3301 (project freeciv):

>> there's always .zip as a fallback.
> We have .zip? Do we have some extra hops in release 
> process to produce one, since I don't see it in automake
> options?
Yup. See manual steps at
.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3301] xz compressed tarballs

[Marko Lindqvist]

Follow-up Comment #9, patch #3301 (project freeciv):

> I've been wondering whether we can drop .tar.gz entirely, maybe
> from 2.4 onwards, in favour of .tar.bz2. .tar.gz doesn't get
> many downloads from Sourceforge.

I've seen this discussion for several projects lately. Most often it's decided
that .tar.gz shoudl be provided as idiot-proof format, and .tar.xz as modern
one, meaning that projects taht earlier provided .tar.gz and .tar.bz2 are
dropping .tar.bz2 in favor of .tar.xz and leave .tar.gz as is. We're certainly
late by introducing .tar.bz2 now when others are already abandoning it.

> there's always .zip as a fallback.

We have .zip? Do we have some extra hops in release process to produce one,
since I don't see it in automake options?

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3301] xz compressed tarballs

[Jacob Nevins]

Follow-up Comment #8, patch #3301 (project freeciv):

Sigh, read all emails before replying... I see you're looking at bz2 tarballs
in patch #3303.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3301] xz compressed tarballs

[Jacob Nevins]

Follow-up Comment #7, patch #3301 (project freeciv):

I've been wondering whether we can drop .tar.gz entirely, maybe from 2.4
onwards, in favour of .tar.bz2. .tar.gz doesn't get many downloads from
Sourceforge.
I'd've thought that any platform that can make use of modern Freeciv source
code can deal with bzip2 by now, and there's always .zip as a fallback.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3301] xz compressed tarballs

[Marko Lindqvist]

Update of patch #3301 (project freeciv):

 Planned Release:2.4.0, 2.5.0 =>


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3301] xz compressed tarballs

[Marko Lindqvist]

Update of patch #3301 (project freeciv):

  Status:   Need Info => Postponed  

___

Follow-up Comment #6:

Wait until time is suitable for making automake 1.11 minimum requirement.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3301] xz compressed tarballs

[Marko Lindqvist]

Update of patch #3301 (project freeciv):

  Status:Done => Need Info  
 Open/Closed:  Closed => Open   

___

Follow-up Comment #3:

It occurred me to check what automake version this requires only after
committing.
Digging automake ChangeLogs it seems that tar.xz support was added in 1.11.
I'll test what older ones do with unknown (to them) options, but if it doesn't
work I think we have to revert this. Maybe build bzip2 compressed tarballs for
now instead (bzip2 was first mentioned in automake ChangeLog for 1.8)

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3301] xz compressed tarballs

[Marko Lindqvist]

Update of patch #3301 (project freeciv):

  Status:  Ready For Test => Done   
 Assigned to:None => cazfi  
 Open/Closed:Open => Closed 


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3301] xz compressed tarballs

[Marko Lindqvist]

URL:
  

 Summary: xz compressed tarballs
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: cazfi
Submitted on: Wed 16 May 2012 05:20:36 AM EEST
Category: bootstrap
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: Ready For Test
 Privacy: Public
 Assigned to: None
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Discussion Lock: Any
 Planned Release: 2.4.0, 2.5.0

___

Details:

Build .tar.xz distributions in addition to .tar.gz ones. Built from current
trunk latter was 41M and former 24M.



___

File Attachments:


---
Date: Wed 16 May 2012 05:20:36 AM EEST  Name: XzDist.diff  Size: 447B   By:
cazfi



___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev