[gobolinux-devel] [gobolinux-commits] tools/Compile/bin Compile

[Jonas Karlsson]

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 18:25:19 +0200, Hisham Muhammad <hisham.hm at gmail.com>  
wrote:

> On 10/12/06, Jonas Karlsson <jonka750 at student.liu.se> wrote:
>> > diff -u -b -r1.122 -r1.123
>> > --- Compile	9 Sep 2006 15:05:28 -0000	1.122
>> > +++ Compile	12 Oct 2006 04:44:49 -0000	1.123
>> > @@ -196,7 +196,7 @@
>> >     fi
>> >    Log_Normal "Generating package's build information..."
>> > -   GenBuildInformation "$appname" "$versionnumber" >
>> > "$target/Resources/BuildInformation"
>> > +   GenBuildInformation --store "$appname" "$versionnumber"
>> >    # TODO: Dependencies file of binary package is currently being  
>> copied
>> > from Recipe at install_extras
>> >    #       We sould adapt this dependency file, since dependencies  
>> for a
>> > binary package are usually
>>
>> This, again, raises the question about Dependency file. What should be
>> done with it on binary packages? There's a bug in
>> Compile/SignPackage/CreatePackage as in
>> http://lists.gobolinux.org/pipermail/gobolinux-devel/2006-October/001628.html
>
> Ok. At first I thought I'd better not mess with this since I'm not
> that familiar with
> the signing code, but I'm taking a look at this.
>
> Let's see: based on what we agreed on recently, Dependencies should be
> handwritten and BuildInformation generated at build time. So, none of
> these should be automatically written by CreatePackage. So I'm taking
> off this code from CreatePackage.
>
Seems like the right thing to do.

> Instead, I'm making CreatePackage die when the Dependencies file is
> missing, so that packages are not distributed without any dependency
> info.
>
> Since CreatePackage will encourage the user to write a Dependencies
> file when it is missing, signing the program when the Dependencies
> file is not there yet doesn't make sense. So, Compile will only sign
> programs containing a Dependencies file.
>
Yes, that sounds good.

> I think this fixes the workflow. It'll make it a bit more annoying,

do you really think? ;)

> but I think it's part of the plan to get more correct dependency info.
>
Yes, that's a good goal.

> I just finished these changes in my local copy. Does this sound good?
> If so, I'll commit.
>
That sounds ok to me. I wasn't sure what behaviour we wanted regarding the  
Dependency and the BuildInformation files, so I didn't want to mess with  
it until I got some input. But I think you've done it all. :)

-- 
/Jonas

Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/