On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 09:45:49AM -0500, Doug Goldstein wrote: > 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. When running: rpmbuild --ta libvirt-0.9.1.tar.gz it will look for 'libvirt.spec' inside the tar.gz, therefore we *must* include it in EXTRA_DIST & the revert was correct. Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list