Re: [CVS] RPM: rpm-5_2: rpm/ Makefile.am
On May 14, 2009, at 11:41 AM, Jeff Johnson wrote: I haven't a clue what the better answer is. But the explicit enumeration is likely to break again and again and again. I know my habits well ;-) I perhaps should mention the original reason for explicit enumeration of files. When releasing rpm over the years, adding a subdir just wasn't gud enuf for end lusers because the subdir included CVS/* and the lusers whined bitterly, The better fix (and likely achievable @rpm5.org) is to prepare the tar-ball from a cvs export rather than a cvs checkout. An export rather than a check-out doesn't have CVS/ subdirs, and would likely permit sub-trees to be mentioned implicitly, rather than continuing with the insanity of maintaining explicit file list manifests. Its entirely unclear whether @rpm5.org should distribute some of the contained content already within CVS imho. If the content is included, then it is easier to build RPM. OTOH, if the content is not included, then How do I build RPM? becomes a very tedious maintenance task. But yes, distributed tar-balls will be smaller without additional contained content. The only question I have there is Why am I wasting time developing stuff that is gonna be instantly slopped into the bit bucket? Yes, I know my own private reasons for developing quite well ... *shrug* Software development is largely a spectator sport these days ... 73 de Jeff __ RPM Package Managerhttp://rpm5.org Developer Communication Listrpm-devel@rpm5.org
Re: [CVS] RPM: rpm-5_2: rpm/ Makefile.am
2009/5/14 Jeff Johnson n3...@mac.com Thanks for doing. But somehow there has to be a better way to include files (and sub-trees) in EXTRA_DIST without explicitly enumerating each and every file. E.g. liveconnect is unused by rpmjs, and is highly unlikely to ever be used. Meanwhile the cost of customizing imported subtrees is non-trivial, its adds stuff that needs to be vetted each and every import, and leads to Bloat! complaints for tar-balls. I haven't a clue what the better answer is. But the explicit enumeration is likely to break again and again and again. I know my habits well ;-) Yeah, this was quite a bit annoying to include and felt quite fragile.. btw. I noticed rpm building rpmkey rpmxar by default now for some reason? (didn't happen with HEAD) How does one disable the build of these if headers missing? I figure that just placing it's code within #ifdefs gets a bit dirty with the expected executable binaries to produce and all.. It's not like it's a big problem for me to make sure to have what provides keyutils.h, xar.h etc. installed, I might as well do that anyways, but I figure that regular users might not be all that happy about it. ;) -- Regards, Per Øyvind
Re: [CVS] RPM: rpm-5_2: rpm/ Makefile.am
Thanks for doing. But somehow there has to be a better way to include files (and sub-trees) in EXTRA_DIST without explicitly enumerating each and every file. E.g. liveconnect is unused by rpmjs, and is highly unlikely to ever be used. Meanwhile the cost of customizing imported subtrees is non-trivial, its adds stuff that needs to be vetted each and every import, and leads to Bloat! complaints for tar-balls. I haven't a clue what the better answer is. But the explicit enumeration is likely to break again and again and again. I know my habits well ;-) 73 de Jeff On May 14, 2009, at 11:34 AM, Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote: RPM Package Manager, CVS Repository http://rpm5.org/cvs/ Server: rpm5.org Name: Per Øyvind Karlsen Root: /v/rpm/cvs Email: pkarl...@rpm5.org Module: rpm Date: 14-May-2009 17:34:27 Branch: rpm-5_2 Handle: 2009051415342700 Modified files: (Branch: rpm-5_2) rpm Makefile.am Log: add js ruby files so that they get included in generated tarball since they're as configure.ac refers to them.. Summary: RevisionChanges Path 2.236.2.1 +12 -0 rpm/Makefile.am patch -p0 '@@ .' Index: rpm/Makefile.am = = = = = = == $ cvs diff -u -r2.236 -r2.236.2.1 Makefile.am --- rpm/Makefile.am6 May 2009 11:44:32 - 2.236 +++ rpm/Makefile.am14 May 2009 15:34:27 - 2.236.2.1 @@ -10,6 +10,18 @@ lua/[A-Z]* lua/*.[ch] lua/local/l* \ file/src/[A-Z]* file/src/*.[ch] file/python file/magic file/doc file/[A-Z]* file/acinclude.m4 file/aclocal.m4 \ file/autogen.sh file/config* file/depcomp file/install-sh file/ ltmain.sh file/missing file/mkinstalldirs \ + js/*.[ch] js/Makefile.in js/Makefile.am \ + js/src/*.[ch] js/src/*.mk js/src/*.js js/src/*.sed js/src/ Makefile.in js/src/Makefile.am \ + js/src/editline/*.[ch3] js/src/editline/Makefile.ref js/src/ editline/README \ + js/src/fdlibm/*.[ch] js/src/fdlibm/Makefile.in js/src/fdlibm/ Makefile.ref \ + js/src/fdlibm/*mak js/src/fdlibm/*mdp \ + js/src/liveconnect/*.[ch] js/src/liveconnect/*.cpp js/src/ liveconnect/*.msg js/src/liveconnect/*.html \ + js/src/liveconnect/*.dsp js/src/liveconnect/Makefile.in js/src/ liveconnect/Makefile.ref \ + js/src/liveconnect/classes/Makefile.in js/src/liveconnect/classes/ Makefile.ref \ + js/src/liveconnect/classes/netscape/Makefile.ref js/src/ liveconnect/classes/netscape/javascript/*.java \ + js/src/liveconnect/classes/netscape/javascript/Makefile.ref \ + js/src/liveconnect/config/*.mk js/src/liveconnect/_jni/*.h \ + ruby/*.[ch] ruby/Makefile.in ruby/Makefile.am \ perl/typemap \ perl/Makefile.PL.in \ perl/t/00.pod.t perl/t/00.pod.coverage.t \ @@ . __ RPM Package Managerhttp://rpm5.org CVS Sources Repositoryrpm-...@rpm5.org __ RPM Package Managerhttp://rpm5.org Developer Communication Listrpm-devel@rpm5.org
Re: [CVS] RPM: rpm-5_2: rpm/ Makefile.am
On May 14, 2009, at 11:53 AM, Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote: btw. I noticed rpm building rpmkey rpmxar by default now for some reason? (didn't happen with HEAD) How does one disable the build of these if headers missing? One doesn't disable rpmkey or rpmxar or luac/luav or js or Berkeley DB utilities or ... during build. Remove from /usr/lib/rpm/bin if you don't want the executable. The cost of the AutoFu baggage to configure the build is already groaning from its own weight. I figure that just placing it's code within #ifdefs gets a bit dirty with the expected executable binaries to produce and all.. It's not like it's a big problem for me to make sure to have what provides keyutils.h, xar.h etc. installed, I might as well do that anyways, but I figure that regular users might not be all that happy about it. ;) You might instead actually look at what is in keyutils (and rpmkey) rather than just saying Bloat! Bloat! Bloat!. And if regular lusers do not know how to use rm(1), well adding RPM AutoFu is unlikely to enlighten them further. (aside wrto rpmkey) Distributing with rpmkey MANDATORY is the only way I can see to automate signing packages. That is in fact what rpmkey can do, add a per-session gpg key for retrieval by rpm. All of this functionality is already in rpm-5.0. And noone is using largely because they haven't looked and the functionality is incomplete without additional executables. And around and around and around we go ... Bloat! Bloat! Bloat! Bloat! Bloat! Bloat! Bloat! 73 de Jeff__ RPM Package Managerhttp://rpm5.org Developer Communication Listrpm-devel@rpm5.org
Re: [CVS] RPM: rpm-5_2: rpm/ Makefile.am
2009/5/14 Jeff Johnson n3...@mac.com On May 14, 2009, at 11:53 AM, Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote: btw. I noticed rpm building rpmkey rpmxar by default now for some reason? (didn't happen with HEAD) How does one disable the build of these if headers missing? One doesn't disable rpmkey or rpmxar or luac/luav or js or Berkeley DB utilities or ... during build. Remove from /usr/lib/rpm/bin if you don't want the executable. The cost of the AutoFu baggage to configure the build is already groaning from its own weight. I figure that just placing it's code within #ifdefs gets a bit dirty with the expected executable binaries to produce and all.. It's not like it's a big problem for me to make sure to have what provides keyutils.h, xar.h etc. installed, I might as well do that anyways, but I figure that regular users might not be all that happy about it. ;) You might instead actually look at what is in keyutils (and rpmkey) rather than just saying Bloat! Bloat! Bloat!. And if regular lusers do not know how to use rm(1), well adding RPM AutoFu is unlikely to enlighten them further. (aside wrto rpmkey) Distributing with rpmkey MANDATORY is the only way I can see to automate signing packages. That is in fact what rpmkey can do, add a per-session gpg key for retrieval by rpm. All of this functionality is already in rpm-5.0. And noone is using largely because they haven't looked and the functionality is incomplete without additional executables. And around and around and around we go ... Bloat! Bloat! Bloat! Bloat! Bloat! Bloat! Bloat! Well, bloat wasn't really the issue, but rather build breakages. If mandatory then configure should check for the headers. -- Regards, Per Øyvind
Re: [CVS] RPM: rpm-5_2: rpm/ Makefile.am
On May 14, 2009, at 12:20 PM, Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote: Well, bloat wasn't really the issue, but rather build breakages. If mandatory then configure should check for the headers. Well there are two ways to fix that, enable or disable: 1) add the ususal #ifdef WITH_KEYUTILS 2) change your build configuration to add --with-keyutils. There is no way to fix the feature, per-session key retrieval, without starting to distribute rpmkey.c. And yes there are additional implementations that will be needed for the keyutils challenged on non-linux. Ya gotta start somewhere ... 73 de Jeff__ RPM Package Managerhttp://rpm5.org Developer Communication Listrpm-devel@rpm5.org
