Re: [Audacity-devel] Tarballs

[Benjamin D. <bd...@de...>]

Hi Martyn,

I consider the maketarball.sh patches save, because they touch only the
maketarball.sh script and this script is not part of the tarball.

With patch number 9 and 10, I got rid of the 'if'. It works even when
using only local libraries.

9) autoreconf-libogg.patch: This patch makes autoreconf work in
lib-src/libogg.

10) maketarball-run-autoreconf.patch: Run autoreconf in every library
directory to regenerate all autotool files. Running ./configure in
maintainer mode is not enough to get everything updated.
Note: Running autoreconf in the base directory will not work, because
autoreconf will produce a failing configure script for project that
aren't using automake (= no Makefile.am).

Everyone should be able to reproduce the working tarball by applying the
10 patches, running scripts/maketarball.sh. The tarball generation
script should either fail or produce a correct tarball. The case of
silently failing should not occur any more.

Am Montag, den 21.01.2013, 00:48 +0000 schrieb Martyn Shaw:
> Hi Ben
> 
> I have no idea if your patches work, and you are much more of an 
> expert on that Linux stuff than me.  I currently don't have a working 
> Linux compile system on my main box.
> 
> And our Release Manager (RM) has clearly stated that this is outside 
> of our 2.0.3 release.  We are not doing a fullsrc tarball this time 
> round (2.0.3), but may do in the future iff we have a devel willing to 
> do that, and another person or two to confirm it works.
> 
> I note that you say "works correctly if" and that 'if' worries me; can 
> you get rid of that?
> 
> Are these patches specific to Debian and Ubuntu or are they more 
> generally applicable?  You have to remember that I have little Linux 
> experience.  I think we want patches that work on any Linux system.
> 
> Thanks for your efforts
> Martyn
> 
> On 20/01/2013 23:42, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> > Am Samstag, den 19.01.2013, 12:19 +0000 schrieb Gale Andrews:
> >> | From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...>
> >> | Fri, 18 Jan 2013 19:07:05 -0800
> >> | Subject: [Audacity-devel] Tarballs
> >>> On 1/18/2013 3:57 PM, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> >>>> Am Mittwoch, den 16.01.2013, 20:21 -0800 schrieb Vaughan Johnson:
> >>>>> On 1/16/2013 12:42 PM, Steve the Fiddle wrote:
> >>>>>> On 16 January 2013 19:50, Gale Andrews <ga...@au...> wrote:
> >>>>>>> | From Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...>
> >>>>>>>> I'm having some problems with the full-source tarball because:
> >>>>>>>> 1) I can't test on Windows
> >>>>>>>> 2) A couple of the libraries in SVN do not build correctly on my
> >>>>>>>> machine, so they error in the full source tarball.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Do we really need the full source tarball? As I understand it, it is
> >>>>>>>> better for Linux users to use system libraries when possible. For
> >>>>>>>> Windows developers I'd have thought they world be better to use SVN
> >>>>>>>> than a tarball.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I defer to Linux experts.
> >>>>
> >>>> I guess that the minsrc tarball is sufficient for most Linux users. We
> >>>> always use the minsrc tarball in Debian/Ubuntu and nyquist is the only
> >>>> library that we need from the lib-src directory. From a Linux user
> >>>> perspective, the full source tarball could go away.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think it makes sense to keep the full source tarball and use it for
> >>>> the Windows (and Mac?) builds. Then you can point user of your built
> >>>> binaries to the corresponding source tarballs. This is in my opinion
> >>>> easier than to point to a specific revision of an svn checkout.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Okay, thanks, but I don't think we have resources to do full tarball
> >>> this release, as was pretty extensively discussed.
> >>>
> >>> If I'm incorrect about that, sure, let's do it. We're certainly
> >>> resource-limited, so I think we should not spend a lot of effort on
> >>> icing the cake.
> >>
> >> The maketarball.sh script uses:
> >>
> >> ./configure --enable-maintainer-mode --with-libsndfile=local --with-lib-preference=\"local system\"
> >>
> >> As I understand it, if you try to build all the libs needed for the
> >> fullsrc using that ./configure, you end up with a failed configure
> >> "fails with unexpected EOF's at line 8525 and 8526" or similar
> >> (I can confirm that).
> >
> > I tried to fix that configure issue and fixed various stuff along the way.
> >
> > 1) maketarball-check-for-prerequisites.patch: This patch adds tests for
> > the scripts that are needed by maketarball.sh and will fail upfront
> > instead of silently producing broken configure script and such.
> >
> > 2) maketarball-drop-unneeded-configure-flag.patch: The configure flag
> > --with-libsndfile=local is not needed, because
> > --with-lib-preference="local system" already prefers a local library
> > over a system library.
> >
> > 3) maketarball-replace-existing.patch: The maketarball.sh will fail to
> > xz-compress the tarballs, if the resulting .tar.xz files already exist.
> > This patch remove possible existing .tar.xz files before creating the
> > new ones.
> >
> > 4) fail-on-error.patch: Failures on clean or distclean were ignore. The
> > patch will produce a failure if a Makefile exist and the clean/distclean
> > target fails. Note: expat has no distclean target and therefore the
> > clean target is used on distclean.
> >
> > With these patches, the resulting fullsrc tarball works correctly if
> > system libraries for libvorbis, libmad, and libsndfile are used. Do you
> > want this tarball? While investigating, I tried to make autoreconf
> > working. These patches are a starting point:
> >
> > 5) autoconf-warning-v5.patch: AC_CONFIG_SUBDIRS needs to take static
> > strings. Dynamically evaluated variables are not allowed.
> >
> > 6) autoreconf-libsamplerate.patch: ACLOCAL_AMFLAGS should be set it
> > Makefile.am to let autoreconf find the directory with the m4 scripts.
> >
> > 7) autoreconf-libsndfile.patch: ACLOCAL_AMFLAGS should be set it
> > Makefile.am to let autoreconf find the directory with the m4 scripts.
> >

-- 
Benjamin Drung
Debian & Ubuntu Developer