Re: [opensc-devel] [opensc-commits] svn opensc changed[4776] Don't dump wiki content into distribution package.
Martin, Waiting for your decision. On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Alon Bar-Lev alon.bar...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Martin Paljak mar...@paljak.pri.ee wrote: But... the only dependency we require is xsltproc, so maybe we can rethink this... Provided you agree that building the package with --enable-doc or --enable-man requires xsltproc available on build machine, we can remove all this useless generation and hacks. I think it is not a huge problem to require xsltproc, it is quite common and small. What bothers me more is docbook-xsl. But the target audience of people who run make dist and who run make install is different. But maybe there's more in the autotools philosophy that I don't fully get. OK I will modify the build so that the file will be generated on builder. Much simpler! Will this get rid of the symlink magic, and allow: make dist: require xsltproc, docbook-xsl, don't require playing with symlinks (assumes/requires running from version control checkout) make dist *WILL NOT* require xsltproc, docbook-xsl. It will actually only distribute the sources, no generation of files. make, make install: don't require xsltproc and docbook-xsl, use the pre-generated man files. make *WILL* require xsltproc and docbook-xsl if and only if --enable-man and/or --enable-doc is specified at configure. If you want to avoid xsltproc dependency from make install, we back to square one (current trunk). As the only documentation other than man pages is tools.html (should that be placed on the website somewhere?) one of --enable-doc or --enable-man is redundant. I do not follow... Do you want to remove the tools.html from build? Or install both man and htmls using one option? I don't think that installing to mandir and htmldir should be enforced as single option. I did not notice that the tools.html is distributed (dist_html_DATA). But does it make sense to install two competing copies of tool usage options? If you use the tools, you use the command line, thus using man should be a known activity. If using a web browser, wiki has much more detailed information than in the htmlified man pages copy. Your call... :) ___ opensc-devel mailing list opensc-devel@lists.opensc-project.org http://www.opensc-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opensc-devel
Re: [opensc-devel] [opensc-commits] svn opensc changed[4776] Don't dump wiki content into distribution package.
Hello, On Oct 5, 2010, at 7:34 PM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: Martin, Waiting for your decision. On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Alon Bar-Lev alon.bar...@gmail.com wrote: make dist: require xsltproc, docbook-xsl, don't require playing with symlinks (assumes/requires running from version control checkout) make dist *WILL NOT* require xsltproc, docbook-xsl. It will actually only distribute the sources, no generation of files. make, make install: don't require xsltproc and docbook-xsl, use the pre-generated man files. make *WILL* require xsltproc and docbook-xsl if and only if --enable-man and/or --enable-doc is specified at configure. If you want to avoid xsltproc dependency from make install, we back to square one (current trunk). Current build files are OK as long as they work. I can't copy the relevant lines but I've seen some missing html.out required for XXX kind messages from make, but they usually magically disappear with make clean/make -j 8 (could it be some race condition?) Personally I don't mind simplicity in build files. 99% of people run binaries or packages, 99% of people who don't run binary packages on Linux know what they are doing. Or won't mind downloading an extra few packages or not having the man pages. Don't really have a preference. It's your call :) -- @MartinPaljak.net +3725156495 ___ opensc-devel mailing list opensc-devel@lists.opensc-project.org http://www.opensc-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opensc-devel
Re: [opensc-devel] [opensc-commits] svn opensc changed[4776] Don't dump wiki content into distribution package.
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 7:12 PM, Martin Paljak mar...@paljak.pri.ee wrote: Personally I don't mind simplicity in build files. 99% of people run binaries or packages, 99% of people who don't run binary packages on Linux know what they are doing. Or won't mind downloading an extra few packages or not having the man pages. Don't really have a preference. It's your call :) OK... So I prefer to remove all the hacks. Doing this now. ___ opensc-devel mailing list opensc-devel@lists.opensc-project.org http://www.opensc-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opensc-devel
Re: [opensc-devel] [opensc-commits] svn opensc changed[4776] Don't dump wiki content into distribution package.
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Martin Paljak mar...@paljak.pri.ee wrote: But it is working correctly, that patch was incorrect. Leaving the possible changed logic for ChangeLog generation aside, what was incorrect in that patch? The changes in the docs, exactly what you request next. Please explain in some more details what is the problem with current trunk, so I can fix it. I'd like to clean up doc directory, the api directory and the symlinking in doc/Makefile.am are not needed for manpage generation. That was one of the changes in my original patch that actually triggered the distcheck problem, removing wiki dumping was not a problem. If you could also fix my original root cause would be great. I worked very hard to make it work in the past, I do not think there is a simpler shorter way to do this. The problem is that automake assume you seldom provide generated files within the source tarball, as you can always generate the files when you build the package. What we are trying to do is to provide pre-generated document files within the tarball, I don't like it, but this was the requirement. Doing so, when we need to support separate build directory is somewhat complex, as we cannot make the source directory dirty. But... the only dependency we require is xsltproc, so maybe we can rethink this... Provided you agree that building the package with --enable-doc or --enable-man requires xsltproc available on build machine, we can remove all this useless generation and hacks. Alon. ___ opensc-devel mailing list opensc-devel@lists.opensc-project.org http://www.opensc-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opensc-devel
Re: [opensc-devel] [opensc-commits] svn opensc changed[4776] Don't dump wiki content into distribution package.
Hello, On Sep 27, 2010, at 12:06 PM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Martin Paljak mar...@paljak.pri.ee wrote: Please explain in some more details what is the problem with current trunk, so I can fix it. I'd like to clean up doc directory, the api directory and the symlinking in doc/Makefile.am are not needed for manpage generation. That was one of the changes in my original patch that actually triggered the distcheck problem, removing wiki dumping was not a problem. If you could also fix my original root cause would be great. I worked very hard to make it work in the past, I do not think there is a simpler shorter way to do this. The problem is that automake assume you seldom provide generated files within the source tarball, as you can always generate the files when you build the package. What we are trying to do is to provide pre-generated document files within the tarball, I don't like it, but this was the requirement. Doing so, when we need to support separate build directory is somewhat complex, as we cannot make the source directory dirty. Does this actually break anything in real life, other than make distcheck? make dist from a svn checkout works, generates the man files and they are present in the distribution targzip. make install from the same targzip also works. What exactly does make distcheck help (I tried reading the explanation in their manual [1] but that did not make anything much clearer) ? As the fail comes from a cp command and not xsltproc command, I assume the comment in doc/Makefile.am [2] is not correct? It seems like an automake issue, not xsltproc, which just requires correct parameters? But... the only dependency we require is xsltproc, so maybe we can rethink this... Provided you agree that building the package with --enable-doc or --enable-man requires xsltproc available on build machine, we can remove all this useless generation and hacks. I think it is not a huge problem to require xsltproc, it is quite common and small. What bothers me more is docbook-xsl. But the target audience of people who run make dist and who run make install is different. But maybe there's more in the autotools philosophy that I don't fully get. As the only documentation other than man pages is tools.html (should that be placed on the website somewhere?) one of --enable-doc or --enable-man is redundant. [1] http://www.gnu.org/software/hello/manual/automake/Checking-the-Distribution.html#Checking-the-Distribution [2] http://www.opensc-project.org/opensc/browser/trunk/doc/Makefile.am#L45 -- @MartinPaljak.net +3725156495 ___ opensc-devel mailing list opensc-devel@lists.opensc-project.org http://www.opensc-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opensc-devel
Re: [opensc-devel] [opensc-commits] svn opensc changed[4776] Don't dump wiki content into distribution package.
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Martin Paljak mar...@paljak.pri.ee wrote: Does this actually break anything in real life, other than make distcheck? Yes. Whatever broken during distcheck will probably break somewhere. Major check of distcheck is separate build directory, this is used by many builders. But... the only dependency we require is xsltproc, so maybe we can rethink this... Provided you agree that building the package with --enable-doc or --enable-man requires xsltproc available on build machine, we can remove all this useless generation and hacks. I think it is not a huge problem to require xsltproc, it is quite common and small. What bothers me more is docbook-xsl. But the target audience of people who run make dist and who run make install is different. But maybe there's more in the autotools philosophy that I don't fully get. OK I will modify the build so that the file will be generated on builder. Much simpler! As the only documentation other than man pages is tools.html (should that be placed on the website somewhere?) one of --enable-doc or --enable-man is redundant. I do not follow... Do you want to remove the tools.html from build? Or install both man and htmls using one option? I don't think that installing to mandir and htmldir should be enforced as single option. Alon. ___ opensc-devel mailing list opensc-devel@lists.opensc-project.org http://www.opensc-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opensc-devel
Re: [opensc-devel] [opensc-commits] svn opensc changed[4776] Don't dump wiki content into distribution package.
On Sep 27, 2010, at 1:56 PM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Martin Paljak mar...@paljak.pri.ee wrote: Does this actually break anything in real life, other than make distcheck? Yes. Whatever broken during distcheck will probably break somewhere. Major check of distcheck is separate build directory, this is used by many builders. OK. But... the only dependency we require is xsltproc, so maybe we can rethink this... Provided you agree that building the package with --enable-doc or --enable-man requires xsltproc available on build machine, we can remove all this useless generation and hacks. I think it is not a huge problem to require xsltproc, it is quite common and small. What bothers me more is docbook-xsl. But the target audience of people who run make dist and who run make install is different. But maybe there's more in the autotools philosophy that I don't fully get. OK I will modify the build so that the file will be generated on builder. Much simpler! Will this get rid of the symlink magic, and allow: make dist: require xsltproc, docbook-xsl, don't require playing with symlinks (assumes/requires running from version control checkout) make, make install: don't require xsltproc and docbook-xsl, use the pre-generated man files. As the only documentation other than man pages is tools.html (should that be placed on the website somewhere?) one of --enable-doc or --enable-man is redundant. I do not follow... Do you want to remove the tools.html from build? Or install both man and htmls using one option? I don't think that installing to mandir and htmldir should be enforced as single option. I did not notice that the tools.html is distributed (dist_html_DATA). But does it make sense to install two competing copies of tool usage options? If you use the tools, you use the command line, thus using man should be a known activity. If using a web browser, wiki has much more detailed information than in the htmlified man pages copy. -- @MartinPaljak.net +3725156495 ___ opensc-devel mailing list opensc-devel@lists.opensc-project.org http://www.opensc-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opensc-devel
Re: [opensc-devel] [opensc-commits] svn opensc changed[4776] Don't dump wiki content into distribution package.
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Martin Paljak mar...@paljak.pri.ee wrote: But... the only dependency we require is xsltproc, so maybe we can rethink this... Provided you agree that building the package with --enable-doc or --enable-man requires xsltproc available on build machine, we can remove all this useless generation and hacks. I think it is not a huge problem to require xsltproc, it is quite common and small. What bothers me more is docbook-xsl. But the target audience of people who run make dist and who run make install is different. But maybe there's more in the autotools philosophy that I don't fully get. OK I will modify the build so that the file will be generated on builder. Much simpler! Will this get rid of the symlink magic, and allow: make dist: require xsltproc, docbook-xsl, don't require playing with symlinks (assumes/requires running from version control checkout) make dist *WILL NOT* require xsltproc, docbook-xsl. It will actually only distribute the sources, no generation of files. make, make install: don't require xsltproc and docbook-xsl, use the pre-generated man files. make *WILL* require xsltproc and docbook-xsl if and only if --enable-man and/or --enable-doc is specified at configure. If you want to avoid xsltproc dependency from make install, we back to square one (current trunk). As the only documentation other than man pages is tools.html (should that be placed on the website somewhere?) one of --enable-doc or --enable-man is redundant. I do not follow... Do you want to remove the tools.html from build? Or install both man and htmls using one option? I don't think that installing to mandir and htmldir should be enforced as single option. I did not notice that the tools.html is distributed (dist_html_DATA). But does it make sense to install two competing copies of tool usage options? If you use the tools, you use the command line, thus using man should be a known activity. If using a web browser, wiki has much more detailed information than in the htmlified man pages copy. Your call... :) ___ opensc-devel mailing list opensc-devel@lists.opensc-project.org http://www.opensc-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opensc-devel
Re: [opensc-devel] [opensc-commits] svn opensc changed[4776] Don't dump wiki content into distribution package.
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 11:51 PM, Martin Paljak mar...@paljak.pri.ee wrote: But this does not remove the api.out/api.tmp/api.work voodoo, what was one of my goals and what caused problems in my original change patch. I knew only the goal was to remove the wiki stuff... Can you explain why do you want to add? Which voodoo you referring? Also, would it not make sense to re-generate changelog whenever make dist is run inside a svn checkout? If people work with none formal checkouts, they should not be forced for internet connection. The detailed commit log is something you want when you release a new version. So the only one who will use the Generate-ChangeLog is you... :) This previous mechanism also worked on fresh checkout only, once the ChangeLog was created it was never refreshed. Alon. ___ opensc-devel mailing list opensc-devel@lists.opensc-project.org http://www.opensc-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opensc-devel
Re: [opensc-devel] [opensc-commits] svn opensc changed[4776] Don't dump wiki content into distribution package.
On Sep 27, 2010, at 1:42 AM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 11:51 PM, Martin Paljak mar...@paljak.pri.ee wrote: But this does not remove the api.out/api.tmp/api.work voodoo, what was one of my goals and what caused problems in my original change patch. I knew only the goal was to remove the wiki stuff... Can you explain why do you want to add? Which voodoo you referring? There was a link to a patch [1] in my original e-mail [2] which had a problem with make distcheck: (cd doc make top_distdir=../opensc-0.12.0-svn distdir=../opensc-0.12.0-svn/doc \ am__remove_distdir=: am__skip_length_check=: am__skip_mode_fix=: distdir) make[2]: *** No rule to make target `man/*.1', needed by `distdir'. Stop. make[1]: *** [distdir] Error 1 make: *** [distcheck] Error 1 Compare current doc/Makefile.am with the shorter one for the voodoo. [1] http://pastebin.com/iZLrBywD [2] http://www.opensc-project.org/pipermail/opensc-devel/2010-September/015014.html -- @MartinPaljak.net +3725156495 ___ opensc-devel mailing list opensc-devel@lists.opensc-project.org http://www.opensc-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opensc-devel
Re: [opensc-devel] [opensc-commits] svn opensc changed[4776] Don't dump wiki content into distribution package.
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 7:15 AM, Martin Paljak mar...@paljak.pri.ee wrote: On Sep 27, 2010, at 1:42 AM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 11:51 PM, Martin Paljak mar...@paljak.pri.ee wrote: But this does not remove the api.out/api.tmp/api.work voodoo, what was one of my goals and what caused problems in my original change patch. I knew only the goal was to remove the wiki stuff... Can you explain why do you want to add? Which voodoo you referring? There was a link to a patch [1] in my original e-mail [2] which had a problem with make distcheck: (cd doc make top_distdir=../opensc-0.12.0-svn distdir=../opensc-0.12.0-svn/doc \ am__remove_distdir=: am__skip_length_check=: am__skip_mode_fix=: distdir) make[2]: *** No rule to make target `man/*.1', needed by `distdir'. Stop. make[1]: *** [distdir] Error 1 make: *** [distcheck] Error 1 Compare current doc/Makefile.am with the shorter one for the voodoo. [1] http://pastebin.com/iZLrBywD [2] http://www.opensc-project.org/pipermail/opensc-devel/2010-September/015014.html But it is working correctly, that patch was incorrect. Please explain in some more details what is the problem with current trunk, so I can fix it. ___ opensc-devel mailing list opensc-devel@lists.opensc-project.org http://www.opensc-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opensc-devel
Re: [opensc-devel] [opensc-commits] svn opensc changed[4776] Don't dump wiki content into distribution package.
On Sep 27, 2010, at 8:32 AM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 7:15 AM, Martin Paljak mar...@paljak.pri.ee wrote: Compare current doc/Makefile.am with the shorter one for the voodoo. [1] http://pastebin.com/iZLrBywD [2] http://www.opensc-project.org/pipermail/opensc-devel/2010-September/015014.html But it is working correctly, that patch was incorrect. Leaving the possible changed logic for ChangeLog generation aside, what was incorrect in that patch? Please explain in some more details what is the problem with current trunk, so I can fix it. I'd like to clean up doc directory, the api directory and the symlinking in doc/Makefile.am are not needed for manpage generation. That was one of the changes in my original patch that actually triggered the distcheck problem, removing wiki dumping was not a problem. If you could also fix my original root cause would be great. -- @MartinPaljak.net +3725156495 ___ opensc-devel mailing list opensc-devel@lists.opensc-project.org http://www.opensc-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opensc-devel
