Request for help: Fix building tarballs for ports add-on.

Request for help: Fix building tarballs for ports add-on.

[Carlos O'Donell]

Community,

As we approach the 2.16 release I am reminded that building
tarballs for the ports add-on is broken.

For the 2.15 release I had to build the tarballs manually.

I'd like this to be automated like it is for glibc core
where we get a .tar.bz2, .tar.gz, and .tar.xz.

Any takers?

Cheers,
Carlos.
-- 
Carlos O'Donell
Mentor Graphics / CodeSourcery
carlos_odonell@mentor.com
carlos@codesourcery.com
+1 (613) 963 1026

Re: Request for help: Fix building tarballs for ports add-on.

[Roland McGrath]

I've been thinking that right after 2.16 will be a good time to consolidate
the repositories (just the initial step, making it ports/ under the libc
tree).  So there might not be very many more iterations of doing this,
though I guess 2.16.x could easily have a substantial upper bound for x.
That said, automation ought to be well nigh trivial.  Unless I've forgotten
about something, we're just doing git archive | compressor-of-choice.


Thanks,
Roland

Re: Request for help: Fix building tarballs for ports add-on.

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 477 bytes --]

On Wednesday 13 June 2012 20:08:57 Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> As we approach the 2.16 release I am reminded that building
> tarballs for the ports add-on is broken.
> 
> For the 2.15 release I had to build the tarballs manually.
> 
> I'd like this to be automated like it is for glibc core
> where we get a .tar.bz2, .tar.gz, and .tar.xz.
> 
> Any takers?

isn't it just:
	git archive --prefix=glibc-ports-2.16/ glibc-2.16 | xz \
		> glibc-ports-2.16.tar.xz
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: Request for help: Fix building tarballs for ports add-on.

[Thomas Schwinge]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 671 bytes --]

Hi!

On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 17:23:03 -0700 (PDT), Roland McGrath <roland@hack.frob.com> wrote:
> I've been thinking that right after 2.16 will be a good time to consolidate
> the repositories (just the initial step, making it ports/ under the libc
> tree).

I agree (and will implement as discussed unless someone else suggests a
different way).

> So there might not be very many more iterations of doing this,
> though I guess 2.16.x could easily have a substantial upper bound for x.
> That said, automation ought to be well nigh trivial.  Unless I've forgotten
> about something, we're just doing git archive | compressor-of-choice.


Grüße,
 Thomas

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 489 bytes --]

Re: Request for help: Fix building tarballs for ports add-on.

[Andreas Jaeger]

On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 21:15:13 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 13 June 2012 20:08:57 Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> > As we approach the 2.16 release I am reminded that building
> > tarballs for the ports add-on is broken.
> > 
> > For the 2.15 release I had to build the tarballs manually.
> > 
> > I'd like this to be automated like it is for glibc core
> > where we get a .tar.bz2, .tar.gz, and .tar.xz.
> > 
> > Any takers?
> 
> isn't it just:
> 	git archive --prefix=glibc-ports-2.16/ glibc-2.16 | xz \
> 
> 		> glibc-ports-2.16.tar.xz

Yeah - there's a Makefile rule in libc:
%.tar: FORCE
        git archive --prefix=$*/ $* > $@.new
        mv -f $@.new $@

I guess, this just needs to be done for ports as well in the proper way 
- unless Carlos wants to call the above manually...

Andreas
-- 
 Andreas Jaeger aj@{suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter/Identica: jaegerandi
  SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
   GF: Jeff Hawn,Jennifer Guild,Felix Imendörffer,HRB16746 (AG Nürnberg)
    GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F  FED1 389A 563C C272 A126

Re: Request for help: Fix building tarballs for ports add-on.

[Joseph S. Myers]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2012, Roland McGrath wrote:

> I've been thinking that right after 2.16 will be a good time to consolidate
> the repositories (just the initial step, making it ports/ under the libc
> tree).

We'll need to work out if that comes with any change to expectations 
regarding what people update in global changes.  (My presumption would be 
that people would still be expected to identify when a change requires 
corresponding ports changes, but not necessarily to make those changes 
themselves - and if any architecture moves out of the ports subdirectory, 
and so is then expected to be included in future global changes, that 
should only happen if the architecture is believed to be up to date with 
such changes at the time of the move.)

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

Re: Request for help: Fix building tarballs for ports add-on.

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 6/14/2012 3:16 AM, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 21:15:13 Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Wednesday 13 June 2012 20:08:57 Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>>> As we approach the 2.16 release I am reminded that building
>>> tarballs for the ports add-on is broken.
>>>
>>> For the 2.15 release I had to build the tarballs manually.
>>>
>>> I'd like this to be automated like it is for glibc core
>>> where we get a .tar.bz2, .tar.gz, and .tar.xz.
>>>
>>> Any takers?
>>
>> isn't it just:
>> 	git archive --prefix=glibc-ports-2.16/ glibc-2.16 | xz \
>>
>> 		> glibc-ports-2.16.tar.xz
> 
> Yeah - there's a Makefile rule in libc:
> %.tar: FORCE
>         git archive --prefix=$*/ $* > $@.new
>         mv -f $@.new $@
> 
> I guess, this just needs to be done for ports as well in the proper way 
> - unless Carlos wants to call the above manually...

Exactly. I'd like to see this added to the libc-ports makefile,
and tested by someone. That would help the upcoming release and
all the point releases based on 2.16. It's just one less thing to
do manually :-)

Cheers,
Carlos.
-- 
Carlos O'Donell
Mentor Graphics / CodeSourcery
carlos_odonell@mentor.com
carlos@codesourcery.com
+1 (613) 963 1026

Re: Request for help: Fix building tarballs for ports add-on.

[Roland McGrath]

> On Wed, 13 Jun 2012, Roland McGrath wrote:
> 
> > I've been thinking that right after 2.16 will be a good time to consolidate
> > the repositories (just the initial step, making it ports/ under the libc
> > tree).
> 
> We'll need to work out if that comes with any change to expectations 
> regarding what people update in global changes.

I propose that the repository consolidation have no immediate ramifications
other than on the use of one repository rather than two.  Further changes
can be done incrementally and discussed on their own.


Thanks,
Roland

Re: Request for help: Fix building tarballs for ports add-on.

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 645 bytes --]

On Thursday 14 June 2012 12:47:30 Roland McGrath wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 Jun 2012, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > > I've been thinking that right after 2.16 will be a good time to
> > > consolidate the repositories (just the initial step, making it ports/
> > > under the libc tree).
> > 
> > We'll need to work out if that comes with any change to expectations
> > regarding what people update in global changes.
> 
> I propose that the repository consolidation have no immediate ramifications
> other than on the use of one repository rather than two.  Further changes
> can be done incrementally and discussed on their own.

+1
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]