On 23 January 2017 at 12:51, Emil Velikov <[email protected]> wrote: > On 23 January 2017 at 04:03, Peter Hutterer <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 02:19:06PM +0000, Emil Velikov wrote: >>> On 20 January 2017 at 02:49, Peter Hutterer <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 07:30:10PM +0000, Emil Velikov wrote: >>> >> From: Emil Velikov <[email protected]> >>> >> >>> >> Months ago, before my work in here there the script had a number of >>> >> assumptions: >>> >> - autoreconf or alike is ran by the user - slight nuisance esp. when >>> >> releasing multiple packages. >>> >> - the generated files were compatible with the ones on the server - >>> >> rarely and issue, but still >>> >> - config.status means 'all the autotools bits were generated correctly' >>> >> - failed to consider if user has multiple config.status - using >>> >> ./build-64bit/ and ./build-32bit/ anyone ? >>> >> - ... >>> >> >>> >> With 663364cda5e316a0509ff5869293e3a815b9945f we mitigated a lot of that >>> >> but did not consider >>> >> - forcing people to `git clean' is annoying and if not careful one can >>> >> purge local files that they want to keep >>> >> - the files generated by autotools were left behind >>> >> >>> >> In order to mitigate those use git worktree. This is more efficient >>> >> [both bandwidth and storage wise] than pulling/generating git tarballs, >>> >> git clone and friends. >>> >> >>> >> Cc: Peter Hutterer <[email protected]> >>> >> Signed-off-by: Emil Velikov <[email protected]> >>> >> --- >>> >> There's a git of noise produced by git worktree and autoreconf. I'm fine >>> >> with 2>/dev/null but I'd leave that to others to decide >>> >> --- >>> >> release.sh | 34 +++++++++++++++++++--------------- >>> >> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) >>> >> >>> >> diff --git a/release.sh b/release.sh >>> >> index 8ed179d..0b3fcbf 100755 >>> >> --- a/release.sh >>> >> +++ b/release.sh >>> >> @@ -357,25 +357,24 @@ process_module() { >>> >> return 1 >>> >> fi >>> >> >>> >> - if [ -e configure ]; then >>> >> - echo "Error: the git repository contains configure" >>> >> - echo "Did you forget to run git clean -fXd (and git clean -fxd) >>> >> ?" >>> >> - return 1 >>> >> - fi >>> >> - >>> >> - # Create tmpdir for the build >>> >> + # Create tmpdir for the release >>> >> build_dir=`mktemp -d -p . build.XXXXXXXXXX` >>> >> if [ $? -ne 0 ]; then >>> >> - echo "Error: could not create a temporary directory for the >>> >> build." >>> >> + echo "Error: could not create a temporary directory for the >>> >> release" >>> >> echo "Do you have coreutils' mktemp ?" >>> >> return 1 >>> >> fi >>> >> >>> >> - echo "Info: generating configure." >>> >> - autoreconf --force --install >/dev/null >>> >> + # Worktree removal is intentionally left to the user, due to: >>> >> + # - currently we cannot select only one worktree to prune >>> >> + # - requires to removal of $build_dir which might contradict with >>> >> the >>> >> + # user decision to keep some artefacts like tarballs or other >>> >> + echo "Info: creating new git worktree." >>> >> + git worktree add $build_dir >>> >> if [ $? -ne 0 ]; then >>> >> - echo "Error: failed to generate configure." >>> >> - return 1 >>> >> + echo "Error: failed to create a git worktree." >>> >> + cd $top_src >>> >> + return 1 >>> > >>> > there's an indentation error, >>> Funky indentation was there (it was a code movement) - we still have a >>> handful of tabs that are meant to be 8 spaces. >>> >>> > but otherwise the series looks good and is >>> > Reviewed-by: Peter Hutterer <[email protected]> >>> > >>> Note: after another thought I've went with v2 for 3/4 (having a >>> version check and building from there). >>> >>> > I guess I'll test this on the next release ;) >>> > >>> Thank you very much. Please let me know if you spot anything odd. >> >> Ok, tested it on the libXi release and something is off, but haven't found >> out what it is yet. You can reproduce it by running a --dry-run on the libXi >> repo, for some reason make distcleancheck fails with >> >> ERROR: files left in build directory after distclean: >> ./config.sub >> ./ltmain.sh >> ./config.guess >> ./install-sh >> ./missing >> ./depcomp >> ./compile >> make[1]: *** [distcleancheck] Error 1 >> >> since these are standard files, it's not a libXi issue, must be something to >> do with the worktrees or how we invoke configure. Reverting this patch >> makes it work again. >> > That's strange I haven't seen issues like the ones you mentioned. > Fetching a clean copy of libXi and doing "../path/to/release.sh . > --dry-run" brings up other issues :-] > Which version of autotools are you using ? See libtool --help > > Using Arch here, packages patched as mentioned: > version: libtool (GNU libtool) 2.4.6 > automake: automake (GNU automake) 1.15 > autoconf: autoconf (GNU Autoconf) 2.69 > > https://git.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/tree/trunk/automake-1.15-perl-regex.patch?h=packages/automake > - fix perl regular expression > https://git.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/tree/trunk/autoconf-2.69-perl-5.22-autoscan.patch?h=packages/autoconf > - fix perl regular expression > > > The other 'fun' experiences - seemingly all bugs in xorg-macros > > - INSTALL_CMD and CHANGELOG_CMD assume that you can write tmp files in > $top_srcdir, which afaict is a violation. > FIXED: Patched xorg-macros to honour top_builddir > > - ChangeLog seem iffy - always creating the file in BUILDDIR, > contradicts with MAINTAINERCLEANFILES > FIXED: Creating tarball -> use $(top_builddir)/ChangeLog, building > from tarball "touch $(top_srcdir)/ChangeLog" > - INSTALL... as above > Unlike the above we cannot use xorg-macros (.git) to detect if we're > creating or building from tarballs. > TODO: How do we fix this properly ? Simplest workaround is to continue > if INSTALL is already available... should be opt for the same with > ChangeLog ? > The above ChangeLog/INSTALL issues should be resolved with https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/18629/
> - xmlto complains loudly [in the xorg-macros test] when the input is > empty and thus detection fails > TODO: Perhaps we should provide a non-empty file ? > While this one is already addressed upstream. Can you/others please give those a bash and let me know if you spot any issues. Thanks ! Emil _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
