On Wed, 2016-05-04 at 05:46 +0200, Michal Vyskocil wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Just for a curiosity - the content of packaging/debian collide with
> standard Debian packaging? It is intentionally there to not clash, so maybe
> solve this problem. Either by not generating them, either by defying safer
> location.

It's not a problem with the location, it's just that the Debian source
package will end up having packaging stuff duplicated and with different
content: 2 changelogs, 2 control files, etc.

But again this is exactly why make dist exists - having that generated
packaging code in the repository is useful, no need to remove it.

> On Tue, 2016-05-03 at 18:26 +0200, Pieter Hintjens wrote:
> > One note, 'make dist' always fails the first few times because files
> > are missing. Keep this in mind. The git tarball has the great
> > advantage of never failing. (And since it makes tarballs look like git
> > clones it gives the same experience to all developers.)
> >
> > I'd vote for killing 'make dist'. It also makes us dependent on autotools.
> 
> Uhm I just tried fresh clones of both libzmq and zeromq4-1,
> and ./autogen.sh; ./configure; make dist works just fine.
> It was broken a while ago, but I fixed it, and now the CI tests that it
> works.
> 
> Besides, IMHO there are 2 big problems with just tarring up the git
> repo.
> 
> First of all, it doesn't remove the dependency, it just moves it down to
> the user. Which means we'll start getting bug reports that are due to
> the different versions of autotools or cmake used (and there are a lot!
> ).
> 
> But most importantly, the tarball will ship stuff that shouldn't be
> shipped, which is a huge problem for distribution packagers. For
> example, in CZMQ, the packaging bit would be shipped. That would break
> many things in the package build process, and the distro maintainer (ie:
> me :-) ) would have to take the shipped tarball and sanitize it, nuking
> all extraneous bits. This should not be necessary! That's exactly the
> reason "make dist" exists.
> 
> > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 6:24 PM, Pieter Hintjens <p...@imatix.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Luca Boccassi <luca.bocca...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Is any of the API I marked as draft actually ready for release?
> > >
> > > Even so, leave it 'draft' until it's actually being used. Changing
> > > minds is expensive otherwise.
> > >
> > >> So should we use branches instead for bugfix releases?
> > >
> > > All fixes to master. In the extraordinary case where a bugfix release
> > > cannot be made from master, a branch could work. We never needed this
> > > in e.g. CZMQ. I doubt we'd need it in libzmq. I absolutely recommend
> > > against branches unless it's the only option. (And I think we've
> > > designed ourselves space to never need that option.)
> > >
> > >> Isn't it possible to do the github release thing with the result of
> > >> "make dist"? I think I've read somewhere that you can use the result of
> > >> CI builds.
> > >
> > > Seems Kevin has solved this, almost :)
> > >
> > > -Pieter
> > _______________________________________________
> > zeromq-dev mailing list
> > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
> > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
> _______________________________________________
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

_______________________________________________
zeromq-dev mailing list
zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev

Reply via email to