On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 1:32 AM, Daniel Veillard <veillard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, May 06, 2011 at 10:25:50AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: >> The rule of thumb is that any file generated by config.status >> is a) reproducible by any user, b) dependent on configure options. >> Therefore, it is inappropriate to include such generated files >> in the tarball (for proof, Makefile is generated from Makefile.in; >> the former is not in the tarball while the latter is). >> > [...] >> diff --git a/Makefile.am b/Makefile.am >> index 0b4ae9d..ecc7435 100644 >> --- a/Makefile.am >> +++ b/Makefile.am >> @@ -16,9 +16,9 @@ XML_EXAMPLES = \ >> >> ÂEXTRA_DIST = \ >> Â ÂChangeLog-old \ >> - Âlibvirt.spec libvirt.spec.in \ >> + Âlibvirt.spec.in \ > > ÂActually that part is wrong. The libvirt.spec need to be in the > tarball to allow to build rpms from it. This breaks for example "make rpm". > > ÂI reverted that part of the patch, > > Daniel > Daniel, Since the Makefile doesn't ship in the tarball but only Makefile.in, which requires "./configure" be run before "make rpm" be run, that would mean that you don't need the libvirt.spec to be shipped in the tarball and you only want libvirt.spec.in and once you run ./configure it'll generate libvirt.spec. So in fact reverting that change is incorrect. Unless of course I'm missing something. -- Doug Goldstein -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list