Hi Axel, thank you for your kind words and also your contributing to GNU screen. Right now we have more than 200 open issues/tasks/bugs and first I'm going to concentrate on these.
I'm proud to help to maintain this project. I should say, I have a lot of fun :) Yes, we plan the new release on this weekend. But about it a bit later :) I hope you will like it. Cheers, Alex On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Axel Beckert <a...@deuxchevaux.org> wrote: > Hi, > > this is _not_ to bash Amadeusz' work on GNU Screen. > > In contrary: I'm very glad and thankful that he pulled GNU Screen out > of its lethargy and maybe even attracted some new contributors. :-) > > And I'm also glad to see a second person (Alexander) going through > open bug reports and applying fixes since recently. > > Thanks to all who contributed to GNU Screen, especially those who > contributed only recently! > > There happened a few mishaps during building the 4.2.1 release tar > ball which partially are not catchable by the build system, so I want > to list them here, maybe as check list for the 4.3.0 tar ball > building: > > * Makefile still contained the previous release version number which > especially breaks the "clean" target. So the common packager's > workflow of Apply patches → Build → Unapply Patches → Clean the > working directory fails. > > → Please check that all occurrences (except change log, history, > etc.) of 4.2.0, 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 are changed to 4.3.0 before > building the release tar ball. > > (Yes, this case wouldn't show up if the Makefile wouldn't have been > shipped in the release tar ball at all. See below.) > > * Take care that files which do not belong into a release tar ball are > not included. > > + Cache files in the release tar ball: > > autom4te.cache/output.0 > autom4te.cache/output.1 > autom4te.cache/requests > autom4te.cache/traces.0 > autom4te.cache/traces.1 > > + Files generated by calling configure: > > config.h > config.log > config.status > doc/Makefile > Makefile > > + Editor backup files: > > config.h.in~ > > + One more case which I noticed, because the file is included, but > deleted during the clean (or realclean/distclean) target: > > doc/screen.info > > This is likely discussable if it belongs into a release tar ball. > I'd say no, but I won't argue much about it. :-) > > Tools I find useful for such QA checks: tardiff > (http://tardiff.coolprojects.org/) to compare the file list with the > previous release tar ball and "als" from atool > (http://www.nongnu.org/atool/) to comfortably check the list of > contained files independent of the actual file format and compression > type. > > Thanks for considering! All the packagers of GNU Screen will be > thankful for clean release tar balls, I'm sure! :-) > > In my case I'll be able to drop these files from the packaging for > Debian: > > https://sources.debian.net/src/screen/4.2.1-3/debian/README.source/ > https://sources.debian.net/src/screen/4.2.1-3/debian/patches/00-fix-version-in-Makefile.patch/ > https://sources.debian.net/src/screen/4.2.1-3/debian/clean/ (at least parts > of it) > > Kind regards, Axel > -- > /~\ Plain Text Ribbon Campaign | Axel Beckert > \ / Say No to HTML in E-Mail and News | a...@deuxchevaux.org > (Mail) > X See http://www.nonhtmlmail.org/campaign.html | a...@noone.org > (Mail+Jabber) > / \ I love long mails: http://email.is-not-s.ms/ | http://abe.noone.org/ > (Web) >
