[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: strk
Subject: Re: [Gnash-dev] revno.h again and deb building
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 08:55:47 +0100

On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 03:48:41PM -0700, Rob Savoye wrote:
> On 12/09/10 15:32, strk wrote:

> > 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.

If you commit or pull, your sources must be read-write, so make will
regenerate revno.h, right ? My suggestino was *in addition*,
not replacing the Makefile rule

> > 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.

Which I think is wrong, as it basically silence a real problem.
The result would be unwarned inconsistency in version numbering.

> > 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
> maintainer-clean.

Yeah, the updated patch sounds good in that reguard.

>   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.

We're talking build bots here. Better to have a rule that just builds
packages. We won't need bots signing them anyway...

But for the 'debsign' rule that might be a good idea.


  ()   Free GIS & Flash consultant/developer

reply via email to

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