couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jan Lehnardt <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Problems blocking 1.2.0 release
Date Tue, 07 Feb 2012 12:05:24 GMT

On Feb 7, 2012, at 12:50 , Noah Slater wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:
>> 
>> I'd suggest this looks like we are not using mochiweb.app.src at all
>> and we could either delete it or keep to keep file-parity with upstream.
>> 
>> (file-parity interlude, I'd prefer to keep upstream directories in as
>> much of the original shape as possible to make upgrades more obvious
>> and less error prone)
> 
> 
> Keep.
> 
> 
>>>>> Only in 1.2.0/src/mochiweb: mochiweb_request_tests.erl
>>> 
>>> This can probably be deleted outright assuming make check doesn't try
>>> and use it (and I don't think it does).
>> 
>> File-parity. I'd say we keep it.
> 
> 
> Keep.
> 
>>>> Only in apache-couchdb-1.2.0/src/snappy: Makefile.in
>>> 
>>> No idea what this business is. An artefact of the snappy build? Just
>> delete it?
>> 
>> Makefile.in gets generated by ./bootstrap and is used by ./configure
>> to produce Makefile. We should absolutely keep this and put it in
>> EXTRA_DIST.
> 
> 
> My error, this is actually fine and doesn't need modification.
> 
> 
>>>>> Only in 1.2.0/src/snappy/google-snappy: AUTHORS
>>> 
>>> EXTRA_DIST? Delete?
>> 
>> File-parity. I'd say we keep it.
> 
> 
> My gut tells me we should remove this, but I'm not sure. I can see your
> arguments. What have we done in the past? I can't remember. Do any of the
> other libraries we bundle include documentation files in the source that we
> have removed?

I don't think we have a strict policy (aside from licensing and NOTICE
guidelines) and whoever was responsible for bringing in a library did
whatever they felt like.

I just know from updating a few libraries to newer versions over time
that being diligent about pruning files strictly not needed made the
update process a bit more tedious. Hence my suggestion to make it easier
for future us's.

Cheers
Jan
-- 



> 
> 
>>>>> Only in 1.2.0/src/snappy/google-snappy: COPYING
>>> 
>>> We should look on whether we keep this or not. There's probably ASF
>>> guidelines on what to do here. I'm guessing either delete it or add it
>>> to NOTICE in the root.
>> 
>> NOTICE carries the ASF mandated entry for Snappy, so we are covered on
>> that end. The other question is file-parity again, I'd say we keep it.
> 
> 
> Same point.
> 
> 
>>>>> Only in apache-couchdb-1.2.0/src/snappy/google-snappy:
>>>>> snappy-stubs-public.h
>>> 
>>> Not sure why this is made by bootstrap. Might be a valid reason, might
>>> just need the generation to happen during make instead.
>> 
>> It looks like it makes some assumptions about types. I'm not the expert
>> but assuming the values the packager puts in are the same for everybody
>> is dangerous at best. So yes, I agree, a Make-ification is in order.
>> Can we fix this upstream (a brief search didn't suggest any existing
>> solutions).
>> 
> 
> Per your follow up, we should not ship this. Agreed.


Mime
View raw message