At 06/13/2012 12:10 PM, Eric Blake Wrote: > On 06/12/2012 09:07 PM, Wen Congyang wrote: > >>> >>> We really shouldn't need to compile a file for a virgin 'make dist' to >>> work, but now I have enough information to repeat it. It may be a while >>> before I have a clean solution, though, since every thing I try implies >>> nuking my tree and starting from a fresh clone module my patch attempt. > > I now have 'make dist' works; if it also passes the longer 'make > distcheck' on a virgin tree, then I will push my patch under the > build-breaker rule (patch in separate mail). The bug was that we had a > file in the tarball that depended on a generated file, which is a no-no. > We really need to ship remote_protocol-structs, and we also want 'make > check' to ensure that file is up-to-date (which includes a dependency on > a generated file), but a little bit of refactoring makes it so that > 'make check' need not interfere with 'make dist', by having the two > targets depend on different names. I apply your patch, and the problem does not exist. Thanks Wen Congyang > >>> >>>> >>>> I revert some commits and test the building. I find that this problem is >>>> introduced by the commit 7bff56a0d1514cb955eb14adc14281626e80e96c. >>> >>> That was fixing real bugs, but I'm not surprised that other latent bugs >>> were exposed in the process. >>> >> >> Yes, that commit fixes a bug, but introduce a new bug. > > Not a new bug, but a latent one. The bug has been present since July > 2011 (commit 62dee6f), but it was the refactoring of commit 7bff56a that > exposed it better. > -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list