On Mar 23, 2004, at 8:41 AM, Greg Hudson wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-03-23 at 08:52, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
>> I'm not sure what a good solution would be. Perhaps education of
>> binary
>> packagers? Maybe we can write up a "guidelines" sheet that lists all
>> the things a good binary package ought to contain?
>
> If we think a binary package should contain stuff in our source tree,
> we
> should install it as part of "make install". It's silly to expect
> binary packages to ship more than that.
>
> (I would go further, and say that if we don't install something as part
> of "make install", we shouldn't ship it in the source tarball, and it
> shouldn't be part of our main repository. But other developers would
> probably find that extreme.)
I definitely ran into exactly this problem with hot-backup.py even
being a from-source user. I did a "make install" and then to save disk
space, blew away the build directories. Then a day or so later, I went
hunting for hot-backup.py. I found hot-backup.py.in in my tarball and
the Subversion Subversion repository. I didn't know that it was
configure that made hot-backup.py.in -> hot-backup.py. I just renamed
the thing, made a few edits to in myself to find the binaries and such
and that has appeared to work fine. I guess the configure script would
have automatically put in the paths to the binaries.
-Travis
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Mar 23 15:59:39 2004