Re: [openssl-project] To distribute just the repo file, or the result of 'make dist'?
On 24/07/18 14:50, Richard Levitte wrote: > In message <20180724122839.ga2...@roeckx.be> on Tue, 24 Jul 2018 14:28:40 > +0200, Kurt Roeckx said: > > kurt> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 02:08:46PM +0200, Richard Levitte wrote: > kurt> > > kurt> > The original intention (way back, I think we're even talking SSLeay > kurt> > time here, but at the very least pre-1.0.0 time) was to make a tarball > kurt> > that can be built directly with just a 'make' on any Unix box and > kurt> > without requiring perl. > kurt> > kurt> I don't see how that could work our current system. As far as I > kurt> know, it's actually confired for a system, and it will not work > kurt> properly on an other. It would just work on the same system as > kurt> that we ran config on. > > Hmm? The dist target (Configurations/dist.conf) creates a *very* > generic Makefile with no system specific files. It assumes LP32 and > very generic C compiler command line. It doesn't support assembler > modules, threads or shared libraries... that cuts away quite a lot of Which means it is essentially useless for most purposes. > system dependencies. The only thing that's needed to make the > resulting directory tree free of the need for perl is 'make > build_all_generated'. > > kurt> > 1. Don't release pre-configured tarballs. This is a very simple > kurt> > thing to do, all we have to do is use 'make tar' to create > kurt> > tarballs instead of 'make dist'. We could remove the dist target > kurt> > entirely while we're at it. > kurt> > kurt> This makes most sense to me. > > Yes, it does to me as well, especially considering we're encouraging > everyone to configure anyway. > I agree. Matt ___ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
Re: [openssl-project] To distribute just the repo file, or the result of 'make dist'?
In message <20180724122839.ga2...@roeckx.be> on Tue, 24 Jul 2018 14:28:40 +0200, Kurt Roeckx said: kurt> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 02:08:46PM +0200, Richard Levitte wrote: kurt> > kurt> > The original intention (way back, I think we're even talking SSLeay kurt> > time here, but at the very least pre-1.0.0 time) was to make a tarball kurt> > that can be built directly with just a 'make' on any Unix box and kurt> > without requiring perl. kurt> kurt> I don't see how that could work our current system. As far as I kurt> know, it's actually confired for a system, and it will not work kurt> properly on an other. It would just work on the same system as kurt> that we ran config on. Hmm? The dist target (Configurations/dist.conf) creates a *very* generic Makefile with no system specific files. It assumes LP32 and very generic C compiler command line. It doesn't support assembler modules, threads or shared libraries... that cuts away quite a lot of system dependencies. The only thing that's needed to make the resulting directory tree free of the need for perl is 'make build_all_generated'. kurt> > 1. Don't release pre-configured tarballs. This is a very simple kurt> > thing to do, all we have to do is use 'make tar' to create kurt> > tarballs instead of 'make dist'. We could remove the dist target kurt> > entirely while we're at it. kurt> kurt> This makes most sense to me. Yes, it does to me as well, especially considering we're encouraging everyone to configure anyway. -- Richard Levitte levi...@openssl.org OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/ ___ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
Re: [openssl-project] To distribute just the repo file, or the result of 'make dist'?
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 02:28:40PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 02:08:46PM +0200, Richard Levitte wrote: > > > > The original intention (way back, I think we're even talking SSLeay > > time here, but at the very least pre-1.0.0 time) was to make a tarball > > that can be built directly with just a 'make' on any Unix box and > > without requiring perl. > > I don't see how that could work our current system. As far as I > know, it's actually confired for a system, and it will not work > properly on an other. It would just work on the same system as > that we ran config on. > > > 1. Don't release pre-configured tarballs. This is a very simple > > thing to do, all we have to do is use 'make tar' to create > > tarballs instead of 'make dist'. We could remove the dist target > > entirely while we're at it. > > This makes most sense to me. To me as well. (As a side note, OpenAFS also has something called 'make dist' that is functionally different, but also has deep historical roots and is also something I'm trying to get rid of.) -Ben ___ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
Re: [openssl-project] To distribute just the repo file, or the result of 'make dist'?
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 02:08:46PM +0200, Richard Levitte wrote: > > The original intention (way back, I think we're even talking SSLeay > time here, but at the very least pre-1.0.0 time) was to make a tarball > that can be built directly with just a 'make' on any Unix box and > without requiring perl. I don't see how that could work our current system. As far as I know, it's actually confired for a system, and it will not work properly on an other. It would just work on the same system as that we ran config on. > 1. Don't release pre-configured tarballs. This is a very simple > thing to do, all we have to do is use 'make tar' to create > tarballs instead of 'make dist'. We could remove the dist target > entirely while we're at it. This makes most sense to me. Kurt ___ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
[openssl-project] To distribute just the repo file, or the result of 'make dist'?
This is a question that's been asked before, and that has popped up again in https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/6765 Our current mechanism for creating tarballs for a new OpenSSL release is to run 'make dist' in any given build tree... it's a bit clumsy, as it needs a wasted configuration if it's done in a newly checked out work tree, but is designed to work correctly from any build tree. The original intention (way back, I think we're even talking SSLeay time here, but at the very least pre-1.0.0 time) was to make a tarball that can be built directly with just a 'make' on any Unix box and without requiring perl. Since 1.1.0, though, the tarballs do require perl to generate certain files, such as include/openssl/opensslconf.h. That makes a pre-configured distribution less benefitial. Also, if anyone tries to run 'nmake' on Windows without configuring first, they get a nasty and quite confusing surprise... I think the same happens on VMS, although I haven't tested that. I can see two way to fix this: 1. Don't release pre-configured tarballs. This is a very simple thing to do, all we have to do is use 'make tar' to create tarballs instead of 'make dist'. We could remove the dist target entirely while we're at it. 2. Restore the no-perl benefit with a tarball distributed with 'make dist' (which is very simple due to 'make build_all_generated'). 3. Have the 'dist' config target generate a really dumbed down Makefile that contains the same well known targets as the usual build files, but makes sure to run some kind of fancy script (supposedly in perl) that runs a proper configuration for the platform at hand. (actually, the first item doesn't depend on the rest, but the answer will direct our focus) Cheers, Richard -- Richard Levitte levi...@openssl.org OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/ ___ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project