[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnash-dev] revno.h again and deb building

From: Rob Savoye
Subject: Re: [Gnash-dev] revno.h again and deb building
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 15:48:41 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv: Gecko/20101027 Fedora/3.1.6-1.fc13 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.6

On 12/09/10 15:32, strk wrote:

> There might be a problem with mail delay, or I haven't received
> feedback on my first report about revno.h changes (except from
> pere). Happy to discuss below.

  Somehow happy isn't the word I would use... :-)

> I see. So you have both git and sources in a git repo, but no write access.
> Do you get an error blocking 'make' when writing is attempted or is it just
> a matter of a missing revno.h file ?
> If it's just the missing case we might have generate the initial
> revno.h 

  No, that's an even worse solution. We don't always run autogen after
commits or pulls. I thought about a commit hook, but the current
implementation does the right thing.

> I disagree about "-a x$(GIT) != x" being clearer than "if HAVE_GIT" but
> that's a matter of taste really. Anyway, I wouldn't hang on that.

  The problem was the way you had it didn't default to anything more
than printing an error message, Now it doesn't error, it continues working.

> W/out git you got a package from somewhere, and that package needs to
> have revno.h in. This is why I removed revno.h from the list of files
> cleaned by 'make clean'. You don't want that cleaned. Ever. It's part
> of the sources. Just re-generated if you're clearly in conditions to
> regenerate it (you have git and sources are in a git repository).

  The current implementation does not remove revno.h except for a

> Let's improve it. I'm here to help.

  Please don't unless you talk to me before making changes so we can be
sure they'd work for both of us. There is alot of obscure stuff buried
in how packaging gets built. And it's the non-obvious stuff that keeps
getting stomped on.

> Splitting the rules would be a good idea for buildbot.
> keep 'deb' for unsigned, 'deb-signed' for signed or something
> along those lines (build slaves are runing 'make deb' now as part
> of their builds)

  It's an easy change, I can just add a target for debsign.

> Please do the same. Let's focus on making package building work.

  It's been working for quite a while, until a few days ago. :-) Last
time I checked, I build debs and rpms pretty frequently for our

> As I said, they worked for me except the signing phase.

  It's also possible to change the maintainer at build time, so it would
ask for the key of the person doing the build. I'll think about it.

        - rob -

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]