public inbox for linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Nathan Scott <nscott@aconex.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	xfs@oss.sgi.com, Alex Elder <aelder@sgi.com>
Subject: Re: User Space Releases
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:43:33 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20091214224333.GA22678@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <733693069.1070091260483175291.JavaMail.root@mail-au.aconex.com>

On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 09:12:55AM +1100, Nathan Scott wrote:
> Here's the conversion to new-fangled build style for xfsdump.  Review?
> Its largely same as xfsprogs, the one slight wrinkle was the symlinked
> files in "common"... but thats sorted out with this patch too.

Thanks.  Looks good from looking over it and trying a make dist and
debian package build.  A couple of think I noticed while going over the
diffs between xfsprogs and xfsdump for the build system:

 - in xfsdump we have po/*.mo in the gitignore file, while we list the
   two translations explicitly in xfsprogs.  I'll fix this up and push
   the fix
 - installation of documentation is doc/Makefile is handled slightly
   differently.  In both cases we might be better off installing more
   documtnation (and probably get rid of the $(README) variable in
   xfsdump.  I'll look into more sensible defaults for either.
 - the source-link target in xfsdump now echos the mkdir command
   but xfsprogs doesn't.  I don't care either way but it might be a good
   idea to make it the same in both versions
 - include/builddefs.in in xfsdump now expands prefix/exec_prefix/
   datarootdir/top_builddir twice.  Just kill the second one
 - the doc/PORTING file still exist in xfsdump and should probably be
   deleted.  It doesn't get packaged either, btw.
 - the build directory in xfsdump isn't deleted yet as it is in
   xfsprogs.
 - the Makepkgs script isn't deleted yet as in xfsprogs
   build/rpm/rpm-2.rc.template
 - unlike xfsprogs the m5/lt*.m4 files don't get into the generated
   tarball.  I don't quite understand why we need them, but we should
   at least be consistant.

 - might it be a good idea to add the LHFILES/LCFILEs handling to
   xfsprogs and the install-qa handling to xfsdump include/build*
   despite beeing unused to keep them in sync?
 - probably worth updating the copyrights in either version to list
   the same years now they are the same

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

  reply	other threads:[~2009-12-14 22:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <404301816.1070071260483145992.JavaMail.root@mail-au.aconex.com>
2009-12-10 22:12 ` User Space Releases Nathan Scott
2009-12-14 22:43   ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
     [not found] <1957734295.979141260224244359.JavaMail.root@mail-au.aconex.com>
2009-12-07 22:17 ` Nathan Scott
2009-11-25 22:56 Alex Elder
2009-12-04 16:14 ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-12-07 22:15   ` Nathan Scott

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20091214224333.GA22678@infradead.org \
    --to=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=aelder@sgi.com \
    --cc=nscott@aconex.com \
    --cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox