FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 10-25-2011, 10:28 PM
Russ Allbery
 
Default A debian/rules target to rebuild pre-built stuff?

Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> writes:

> If they use AM_MAINTAINER_MODE and it's "disabled" [1], there's no way
> to check if they aren't in DFSG and/or GPL violation by shipping
> sourceless code. Forbidding it would at least deal with patching
> autotools output rather than source.

While I like the idea of rebuilding everything from scratch, adding
Makefile rules to do so is horrible. Automake bungles this miserably and
it produces all sorts of random unnecessary bugs. With my upstream hat
on, I will *always* use AM_MAINTAINER_MODE. I'm happy to explicitly call
autogen during the build process, but I will not use that misfeature.

--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 87wrbsaeq5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu">http://lists.debian.org/87wrbsaeq5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu
 
Old 10-26-2011, 12:31 AM
Paul Wise
 
Default A debian/rules target to rebuild pre-built stuff?

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 6:28 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:

> While I like the idea of rebuilding everything from scratch, adding
> Makefile rules to do so is horrible. *Automake bungles this miserably and
> it produces all sorts of random unnecessary bugs. *With my upstream hat
> on, I will *always* use AM_MAINTAINER_MODE. *I'm happy to explicitly call
> autogen during the build process, but I will not use that misfeature.

Do you also delete the rules about .o files and manually run GCC
instead of running make?

--
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: CAKTje6H5yU2=VHwX61Mca_Ggre8StqsUKoGJ1HYxdMDpUrD9a g@mail.gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/CAKTje6H5yU2=VHwX61Mca_Ggre8StqsUKoGJ1HYxdMDpUrD9a g@mail.gmail.com
 
Old 10-26-2011, 12:41 AM
Russ Allbery
 
Default A debian/rules target to rebuild pre-built stuff?

Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> writes:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 6:28 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:

>> While I like the idea of rebuilding everything from scratch, adding
>> Makefile rules to do so is horrible. *Automake bungles this miserably
>> and it produces all sorts of random unnecessary bugs. *With my upstream
>> hat on, I will *always* use AM_MAINTAINER_MODE. *I'm happy to
>> explicitly call autogen during the build process, but I will not use
>> that misfeature.

> Do you also delete the rules about .o files and manually run GCC
> instead of running make?

No, because those rules work, are the point of the software rather than an
ancillary and much less-tested feature, aren't frequently buggy, and don't
have a history of causing problems.

Anyway, this discussion irrelevant to your goal, since not using
AM_MAINTAINER_MODE still won't guarantee rebuilding of those files by
default. It only tries to add rules to rebuild them if what it guesses
are the source files have changed. So there's really no point in having
the argument, and I'm not invested in convincing other people to do what I
do. I'm just disgreeing with the message to which I replied, and will be
continuing to use AM_MAINTAINER_MODE in my packages.

In order to force the Debian package to rebuild those files as part of the
package build process, one should instead run autoreconf or whatever
maintainer-provided script does the equivalent, which has the desired
semantics of rebuilding those files unconditionally.

--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 87zkgo8tzc.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu">http://lists.debian.org/87zkgo8tzc.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu
 
Old 10-26-2011, 12:18 PM
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
 
Default A debian/rules target to rebuild pre-built stuff?

On Tue, 25 Oct 2011, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > As a rule, you are supposed to get rid of all autogenerated files and
> > rebuild them from scratch when packaging for Debian. AM_MAINTAINER_MODE
> > changes nothing in that case, as you will readly notice any upstream
> > breakage when you try to build the package after importing a new upstream
> > release.
>
> As another rule, you are not supposed to derivate much from upstream
> without a reason. Using build scripts generated with a different version
> is such a derivation.

We will have to agree to disagree, there. The build system is not the end
product, and in fact one often has to fix or enhance the thing to adequate
the build to either Debian's or the package's requirements.

Besides, the chances of upstream using exactly the same arch toolchain (gcc,
binutils...) as you do are small, and that fact alone will seldom either fix
or introduce bugs in the resulting binary when compared to the prebuilt
stuff from upstream.

Obviously, any non-Debian-specific fixes and enhancements to the build
system should be sent upstream.

> Libtool is quite a beast, much different to autoconf and automake.

Issues with autoconf and automake macros do happen, and get fixed. And bit
rot is a real concern for autoconf/automake rules (and therefore for the
resuling build scripts/makefiles).

> When using libtool I guess it makes sense to retool it, but I think
> without libtool it depends how much changes you want to do to the
> build system.

No, it actually depends entirely on what upstream used to do the tooling on
that particular upstream release, and you will have to keep an eye on that
if you don't retool.

--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20111026121810.GA24599@khazad-dum.debian.net">http://lists.debian.org/20111026121810.GA24599@khazad-dum.debian.net
 
Old 11-14-2011, 02:53 PM
Goswin von Brederlow
 
Default A debian/rules target to rebuild pre-built stuff?

Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:

> Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> writes:
>
>> If they use AM_MAINTAINER_MODE and it's "disabled" [1], there's no way
>> to check if they aren't in DFSG and/or GPL violation by shipping
>> sourceless code. Forbidding it would at least deal with patching
>> autotools output rather than source.
>
> While I like the idea of rebuilding everything from scratch, adding
> Makefile rules to do so is horrible. Automake bungles this miserably and
> it produces all sorts of random unnecessary bugs. With my upstream hat
> on, I will *always* use AM_MAINTAINER_MODE. I'm happy to explicitly call
> autogen during the build process, but I will not use that misfeature.

+1

MfG
Goswin


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 8739dq7lac.fsf@frosties.localnet">http://lists.debian.org/8739dq7lac.fsf@frosties.localnet
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org