Closed bentley closed 3 years ago
make dist
apparently doesn't include the Python parts. I don't know how to make it do so. @unhammer ?
However, I still really think we should deprecate all use of make dist
. It is discouraged by every distro, including OpenBSD. The plain source tarball is vastly preferred. https://www.openbsd.org/faq/ports/specialtopics.html#Autoconf says "It is better to patch the configure.in file and get the ports tree to call autoconf."
You misread the OpenBSD page. In any autotools project, OpenBSD packagers strongly prefer generated configure scripts to avoid the unnecessary dependency on autoconf and the increased build time that results. Running autoconf as in the advice you quoted is only done when the configure script has bugs and needs to be patched.
In addition, we dislike GitHub’s autogenerated tarballs in particular because they are not guaranteed to have stable checksums. The infrastructure that generates them is brittle and checksums have been known to change in the past.
I know what I quoted wasn't perfect, but it is the closest I could find to any sort of packaging recommendation regarding raw source vs. source with generated files. Do you have better links to where the policies are?
Disliking Github's tarballs is understandable. They certainly have shortcomings. As it happens, the build system creates a source tarball a'la https://apertium.projectjj.com/apt/release/source/lttoolbox/ that I can rename and upload instead.
I like using make dist tarballs for gentoo ebuilds too; I'd also recommend using make distcheck perhaps even as travisci script that catches problems like this automatically.
Testing the uploaded
lttoolbox-3.5.1.tar.gz
on OpenBSD -current.