On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 11:37:34AM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 06:33:18PM +, Gavin Smith wrote:
> > I've done this using a separate script under tp/maintain that is
> > run by both autogen.sh and the Makefile. It adds flags for GNU tar
> > only.
>
> It looks good to
On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 06:33:18PM +, Gavin Smith wrote:
> I've done this using a separate script under tp/maintain that is
> run by both autogen.sh and the Makefile. It adds flags for GNU tar
> only.
It looks good to me. Maybe there could be a mention of that somewhere,
maybe in README or R
On Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 08:32:05PM +, Gavin Smith wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 08:36:24PM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > > As far as I know,
> > > nobody is checking that the distribution archive is bit-for-bit
> > > reproducible from some specified commit in the git repository.
> >
> >
On Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 07:17:36PM +, Gavin Smith wrote:
> > I am wondering if we will have to compare the content of the tarball
> > when there is an attempt to do a new one and there is an existing one.
> >
> > There is also the issue of reproducible distributed sources. If we can
> > make
On Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 08:32:04PM +, Gavin Smith wrote:
> I agree in theory but don't know how practical it is to achieve.
>
> It seems that it wouldn't matter as much if we required GNU tar to produce
> the file, as this version of tar wouldn't be required by people building
> the software.
On Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 08:36:24PM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > As far as I know,
> > nobody is checking that the distribution archive is bit-for-bit
> > reproducible from some specified commit in the git repository.
>
> It seems to me that it could be relevant, to be able to check more
> easi
On Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 07:25:47PM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 09:35:57PM +, Gavin Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > The downside is that if tar is different from the tar that generated the
> > > tarball and the tarball is different even though it contains the same
> > > infor
> Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2024 19:25:47 +0100
> From: Patrice Dumas
>
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 09:35:57PM +, Gavin Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > The downside is that if tar is different from the tar that generated the
> > > tarball and the tarball is different even though it contains the same
> > > in
On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 09:35:57PM +, Gavin Smith wrote:
> >
> > The downside is that if tar is different from the tar that generated the
> > tarball and the tarball is different even though it contains the same
> > information it will lead to spurious differences in git. I have no idea
> > t
On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 07:54:18PM +, Gavin Smith wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 08:48:09PM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 07:28:44PM +, Gavin Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > non_ascii.tar should probably also go in MAINTAINERCLEANFILES.
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> >
> > I
On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 08:48:09PM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 07:28:44PM +, Gavin Smith wrote:
> >
> > non_ascii.tar should probably also go in MAINTAINERCLEANFILES.
>
> Agreed.
OK, so the automake manual says:
However ‘maintainer-clean’
should not delet
On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 09:35:12PM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 08:06:35PM +, Gavin Smith wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 08:48:09PM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > > On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 07:28:44PM +, Gavin Smith wrote:
> > > >
> > > > non_ascii.tar should p
On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 10:26:26PM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 09:05:25PM +, Gavin Smith wrote:
> > > Maybe it could be a good idea to have ./autogen.sh regenerate it?
> >
> > I've done this and also tracked the file in git to facilitate
> > any updates.
>
> I think
On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 09:05:25PM +, Gavin Smith wrote:
> > Maybe it could be a good idea to have ./autogen.sh regenerate it?
>
> I've done this and also tracked the file in git to facilitate
> any updates.
I think that it is indeed best, especially for git branches switching,
in case the te
On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 07:28:44PM +, Gavin Smith wrote:
>
> non_ascii.tar should probably also go in MAINTAINERCLEANFILES.
Agreed.
I think that there should also be a configure flag or something like
that such that the tarball is not expanded if set and the corresponding
tests are skipped?
On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 08:06:35PM +, Gavin Smith wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 08:48:09PM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 07:28:44PM +, Gavin Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > non_ascii.tar should probably also go in MAINTAINERCLEANFILES.
> >
> > Agreed.
>
> OK, so the
On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 08:48:09PM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 07:28:44PM +, Gavin Smith wrote:
> >
> > non_ascii.tar should probably also go in MAINTAINERCLEANFILES.
>
> Agreed.
>
>
> I think that there should also be a configure flag or something like
> that such
On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 06:54:43PM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 06:47:41PM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 11:45:11AM -0500, Gavin D. Smith wrote:
> > > branch: master
> > > commit a1e8832ef56932deb90d504d606436934e3540ac
> > > Author: Gavin Smith
>
18 matches
Mail list logo
