[zeromq-dev] ZeroMQ 4.2 release, planning

Michal Vyskocil michal.vyskocil at gmail.com
Wed May 4 05:46:15 CEST 2016


Hi,

Just for a curiosity - the content of packaging/debian collide with
standard Debian packaging? It is intentionally there to not clash, so maybe
solve this problem. Either by not generating them, either by defying safer
location.
On Tue, 2016-05-03 at 18:26 +0200, Pieter Hintjens wrote:
> One note, 'make dist' always fails the first few times because files
> are missing. Keep this in mind. The git tarball has the great
> advantage of never failing. (And since it makes tarballs look like git
> clones it gives the same experience to all developers.)
>
> I'd vote for killing 'make dist'. It also makes us dependent on autotools.

Uhm I just tried fresh clones of both libzmq and zeromq4-1,
and ./autogen.sh; ./configure; make dist works just fine.
It was broken a while ago, but I fixed it, and now the CI tests that it
works.

Besides, IMHO there are 2 big problems with just tarring up the git
repo.

First of all, it doesn't remove the dependency, it just moves it down to
the user. Which means we'll start getting bug reports that are due to
the different versions of autotools or cmake used (and there are a lot!
).

But most importantly, the tarball will ship stuff that shouldn't be
shipped, which is a huge problem for distribution packagers. For
example, in CZMQ, the packaging bit would be shipped. That would break
many things in the package build process, and the distro maintainer (ie:
me :-) ) would have to take the shipped tarball and sanitize it, nuking
all extraneous bits. This should not be necessary! That's exactly the
reason "make dist" exists.

> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 6:24 PM, Pieter Hintjens <ph at imatix.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Luca Boccassi <luca.boccassi at gmail.com>
wrote:
> >
> >> Is any of the API I marked as draft actually ready for release?
> >
> > Even so, leave it 'draft' until it's actually being used. Changing
> > minds is expensive otherwise.
> >
> >> So should we use branches instead for bugfix releases?
> >
> > All fixes to master. In the extraordinary case where a bugfix release
> > cannot be made from master, a branch could work. We never needed this
> > in e.g. CZMQ. I doubt we'd need it in libzmq. I absolutely recommend
> > against branches unless it's the only option. (And I think we've
> > designed ourselves space to never need that option.)
> >
> >> Isn't it possible to do the github release thing with the result of
> >> "make dist"? I think I've read somewhere that you can use the result of
> >> CI builds.
> >
> > Seems Kevin has solved this, almost :)
> >
> > -Pieter
> _______________________________________________
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev


_______________________________________________
zeromq-dev mailing list
zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/attachments/20160504/d2ffaee5/attachment.htm>


More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list