CVS update: samba/source

[John H Terpstra]

On Mon, 15 Oct 2001, Andrew Bartlett wrote:

> John H Terpstra wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> The RedHat SPEC file applies NO patches, btw.
>
> > 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?
>
> But binaries without codepages is also broken, which one do you want?
> Make won't let you do both (circular dependency).  I think neither.
> 'make install' should install a workable distribution, the others should
> do *exactly* what they say, and nothing more.

Then for now, let's reverse the change I made. Unfortunately I deleted the
original email instead of saving it! My bad! It seemed like a sensible
patch to apply that would save a few problems. Looks like it should have
been put in the too hard basket for a while!

If we revert this change does that solve the RPM packaging problem for Red
Hat?

- 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!"