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.
|