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 > > email@example.com > > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > firstname.lastname@example.org > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > email@example.com > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev