CVS update: samba/source

[John H Terpstra]

On Sun, 14 Oct 2001, Jeremy Allison wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 06:27:39PM +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> >
> > I have a workaround for the package build (and I'm about to upload the
> > RedHat 6.2 package it generated).  I'll commit that, but I'm not entirly
> > sure exactly what the original commit intended so I'll leave that if you
> > don't mind.
>
> I'm not sure thats a good idea. If the Makefile.in is incorrect I'd
> rather you fix that than put a hack in the spec file.
>
> Also, I always build a binary package from the *released* tarball,
> not out of any CVS tree.
>
> This is to ensure that anyone rebuilding the package on the platform
> gets *exactly* the same as the code we released - that's *REALLY*
> important.
>
> Please do this for the RH6.2 binary, not from a CVS tree.

I agree totally with Jeremy on this point. The key to our problem is
deeper than just this one incident - we must unify our Linux build
methods. Having so many separate SPEC files and patches to validate each
time is insane. In short, I believe that the makefile should ALWAYS build
a product that is useable. Codepages in the absence of binaries is broken.
Think about it for a moment - how do you build the codepages from the
source if the binaries are not installed?

Please let's discuss this a little further and then fix the source of our
problem - for Samba-3.

- John T.

-- 
John H Terpstra
Email: jht at samba.org

An argument of minds:
"Please help me to find the intellect in Intellectual Property"
"Not me, I can't find the property in it either!"