Bart Smaalders wrote: > Joseph Kowalski wrote: >> >> Ignoring the real question... >> >> Stefan Teleman wrote: >>> IMHO we should check for correctness in the prototype file, and >>> ignore what's copied on disk by "make install", since "make install" >>> will often install a bunch of files we won't include in the >>> prototype file anyway (for example the libtool *.la files). >> Sounds like a bug in the "make install" target. >> >> Maybe the permissions aren't important, but I believe the contents are. >> >> There used to be scripts which checked for correctness of the proto >> area against a package installation. They may still exist. >> >> *Many* packaging bugs were caught that way. Such scripts could >> easily ignore permissions and still have value. >> >> - jek3 >> > > As long as the prototype file contains the stuff you want > packaged, and the exceptions file contains the stuff you don't, > you'll catch any problems. > > Keeping the permissions in the installed proto area the same as > the permissions in the prototype file requires that they be > kept in sync by hand... I feel the permissions data should be > kept in first normal form - in one place only, please. > > - Bart If you read carefully, you'll note I wasn't disagreeing with this.
I was only questioning Stefan's example. A "bug" makes poor justification. As a matter of mainance, the exceptions file should be kept as small as practical. Its for, well, exceptions - not common practice. - jek3
