Re: [PATCH util-modular 00/10] release.sh cleanups, mesa support and more

[Julien Cristau]

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 01:03:33 +0100, Emil Velikov wrote:

> On 15 September 2016 at 15:12, Julien Cristau  wrote:
[...]
> > For 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 (assuming 10 goes in in some way):
> > Reviewed-by: Julien Cristau 
> >
> Thanks, can you push 1, 3, 4, 5 (and 7 ?). I'm short on commit access.
> 
Pushed 1, 3, 4, 5, 6.  Skipped 7 because it sounds like mesa can be
downloaded over https as well.

[...]
> >  9 seems to add a new requirement that I'm not sure is ok.
> On the contrary it should remove/simplify things.
> 
> But as the commit mentions, if people prefer I can rework to have an
> option in a --dist vs --distcheck line manner. Keeping it "off" by
> default, with the long term goal to make it "on" by default.
> 
I don't think adding an option is a good idea, but I also don't know
what problem this is trying to fix...

Cheers,
Julien
___
xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development
Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel

Re: [PATCH util-modular 00/10] release.sh cleanups, mesa support and more

[Emil Velikov]

On 15 September 2016 at 15:12, Julien Cristau  wrote:
> On Fri, Jul  1, 2016 at 15:44:41 +0100, Emil Velikov wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> A series that I've had around for long time. It covers three main topics.
>>  - misc cleanups and small reformatting in prep. for mesa support
>>  - mesa support (10/10)
>>  - give us control to autoreconf, configure and build_dir (09/10).
>>
>> The last option might be a bit controversial, yet it effectively allows
>> us to remove the "user must run autoreconf/configure" requirement
>> from every single package. If configure is OK, `make distcheck' should
>> produce consistent result, and the tarball contents should not vary.
>>
>> It also minimises the chances of stale (generated) files being used as
>> we suggest git clean -fXd/fxd, and we use fresh, unique build_dir. IMHO
>> it also makes things more reproducible, yet again... I'm too flesh on
>> the topic to be an expert.
>>
>> As always, any and all comments, suggestions are appreciated.
>>
> For 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 (assuming 10 goes in in some way):
> Reviewed-by: Julien Cristau 
>
Thanks, can you push 1, 3, 4, 5 (and 7 ?). I'm short on commit access.

> Not a fan of 2
Ack.

> and 6.
Anything specific about it ? Afaict it brings nouveau in line with
everyone else.

>  I don't have enough context to understand what 8
> changes.
It makes it possible to have the build truly out-of-tree. The caveat
is that flex/bison/others(?) embed the complete path in the generated
sources. So by using a full (as opposed to relative) path we expose
"personal" information. I've been meaning to look into those but
-ENOTIME.

>  9 seems to add a new requirement that I'm not sure is ok.
On the contrary it should remove/simplify things.

But as the commit mentions, if people prefer I can rework to have an
option in a --dist vs --distcheck line manner. Keeping it "off" by
default, with the long term goal to make it "on" by default.

>  And
> I wish mesa stopped using a separate directory per release :)
>
Hmm... I'll check with the admins on creating mesa-maint (or similarly
named) and invite you/other distro maintainers to cast your vote
there. All the "looking for input from distribution maintainers" calls
on mesa-dev@ have gone unnoticed afaicr.
^^ not mean to pick on anyone of course, traffic in there is crazy.

Thanks for having a look !
Emil
___
xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development
Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel

Re: [PATCH util-modular 00/10] release.sh cleanups, mesa support and more

[Julien Cristau]

On Fri, Jul  1, 2016 at 15:44:41 +0100, Emil Velikov wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> A series that I've had around for long time. It covers three main topics.
>  - misc cleanups and small reformatting in prep. for mesa support
>  - mesa support (10/10)
>  - give us control to autoreconf, configure and build_dir (09/10).
> 
> The last option might be a bit controversial, yet it effectively allows 
> us to remove the "user must run autoreconf/configure" requirement 
> from every single package. If configure is OK, `make distcheck' should 
> produce consistent result, and the tarball contents should not vary.
> 
> It also minimises the chances of stale (generated) files being used as 
> we suggest git clean -fXd/fxd, and we use fresh, unique build_dir. IMHO 
> it also makes things more reproducible, yet again... I'm too flesh on 
> the topic to be an expert.
> 
> As always, any and all comments, suggestions are appreciated.
> 
For 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 (assuming 10 goes in in some way):
Reviewed-by: Julien Cristau 

Not a fan of 2 and 6.  I don't have enough context to understand what 8
changes.  9 seems to add a new requirement that I'm not sure is ok.  And
I wish mesa stopped using a separate directory per release :)

Cheers,
Julien
___
xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development
Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel