[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: AM_MAINTAINER_MODE
From: |
immanuel litzroth |
Subject: |
Re: AM_MAINTAINER_MODE |
Date: |
Fri, 8 Feb 2013 09:18:16 +0100 |
Once again... this is biting us too so we usually add the AM_MAINTAINER
mode ourselves. This scenario is 100% recognizable and a major source
of problems for us.
Immanuel
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:37 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò
<address@hidden>wrote:
> On 07/02/2013 19:47, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> > So you want to allow users to disable maintainer-mode rules in every
> > package?
>
> Yes. Where users here is "distribution packagers".
>
> > Better risk an extra rebuild than to miss a required one IMVHO. Or
> > understand why timestamps get mangled, and fix that problem instead of
> > its symptoms (i.e., unnecessary rebuilds, in this case).
>
> Yes and no. In some cases, the problem we get is that the rebuild only
> happens in some circumstances, and thus the developer is missing it, but
> it happens on the users' systems, and then they report a bug that we
> can't reproduce...
>
> Basically, I want to have a build failure rather than a build that might
> be wrong.
>
> > I failed to understand what you're saying here, sorry. Care to rephrase,
> > or give an example?
>
> I don't have an example at hand, but let's say this:
>
> - you got a package that for whatever reason is completely messed up if
> generated with automake-1.12, but works fine with 1.9;
> - when I'm rebuilding it as part of an ebuild (Gentoo's spec files
> equivalent, give or take), I declare WANT_AUTOMAKE=1.9;
> - but I'm not rebuilding it in the ebuild;
> - until I get a patch that I don't check thoroughly and messes up the
> timestamps;
> - I still do not rebuild autotools in a controlled fashion;
> - automake triggers the rebuild, and rebuilds with 1.12;
> - I'm screwed.
>
> Variations can happen if for instance the configure relies on a variable
> that is not declared with AC_ARG_VAR (way too common).
>
> Yes, it's all solvable with more attention to details and similar, but
> since we care for stuff to at least behave, --disable-maintainer-mode is
> much nicer _to us_.
>
> --
> Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
> address@hidden — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
>
>
- Inconsistencies in boolean parameters, Diego Elio Pettenò, 2013/02/07
- Re: Inconsistencies in boolean parameters, Stefano Lattarini, 2013/02/07
- AM_MAINTAINER_MODE, Diego Elio Pettenò, 2013/02/07
- Re: AM_MAINTAINER_MODE, Stefano Lattarini, 2013/02/07
- Re: AM_MAINTAINER_MODE, Bob Friesenhahn, 2013/02/07
- Re: AM_MAINTAINER_MODE, Diego Elio Pettenò, 2013/02/07
- Re: AM_MAINTAINER_MODE, Stefano Lattarini, 2013/02/08
- Re: AM_MAINTAINER_MODE, Diego Elio Pettenò, 2013/02/08
- Re: AM_MAINTAINER_MODE, Stefano Lattarini, 2013/02/09
- Re: AM_MAINTAINER_MODE,
immanuel litzroth <=
- Re: AM_MAINTAINER_MODE, Russ Allbery, 2013/02/08
- Re: AM_MAINTAINER_MODE, Ineiev, 2013/02/09
- Re: AM_MAINTAINER_MODE, Russ Allbery, 2013/02/09
- Re: AM_MAINTAINER_MODE, Bob Proulx, 2013/02/09
- Re: AM_MAINTAINER_MODE, Russ Allbery, 2013/02/09
- Re: AM_MAINTAINER_MODE, Bob Friesenhahn, 2013/02/09
- Re: AM_MAINTAINER_MODE, Bob Proulx, 2013/02/09
- Re: AM_MAINTAINER_MODE, immanuel litzroth, 2013/02/08