Re: Tarball generation using outdated tools (gnome-doc-utils, autotools)

[Vincent Untz <vuntz gnome org>]

Le jeudi 15 février 2007, à 11:44, Jan de Groot a écrit :
> At this moment I'm having quite some issues when building released beta
> tarballs using ./configure && make && make install. Many tarballs are
> generated with outdated gnome-doc-utils and don't build without
> regenerating things using gnome-doc-prepare, aclocal and all the other
> things that have to be done after that. Another issue is quite some
> --disable-static flags that don't work, it seems some older autoconf
> version is buggy in generating code for this switch in configure files.
> 
> For SVN, I can imagine that it's normal to run ./autogen.sh or use
> gnome-autogen.sh, but for released tarballs this shouldn't be the case.
> 
> I think we should pay attention to this issue for the final release
> tarballs, as that is what people running gnome from source will use when
> GNOME 2.18 becomes final. Many people don't like the fact that GNOME is
> 50-100 tarballs with many dependencies to get it complete, but when we
> have several important packages (gnome-applets, gucharmap,
> gnome-terminal, gnome-power-manager, file-roller, gnome-utils, totem)
> that don't compile out of the box, these people will certainly have
> something to rant about (and to make things worse: ./autogen.sh is not
> included in tarballs, it's only in SVN (totem and epiphany are an
> exception here)).

FWIW, I built 2.17.91 to smoketest it before releasing it and only two
packages had issues when building (one was because of bashisms, and thus
doesn't affect everybody), and everything was already fixed in svn.

But I definitely agree that maintainers should try to release tarballs
using latest tools.

Vincent

-- 
Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés.