Joerg Bruehe <joerg@stripped> writes:
> I agree with the approach you are taking.
It is (almost) the one you suggested, so I understand you do ;-)
> My general question is:
> Do you really think this fix should be applied to 4.0, which is EOL ?
>
> I propose not to change 4.0 for this (too old), most likely also not 4.1
> (I doubt there are many people building that from source) -
> I don't even know whether our public BK trees offer these two versions.
>
> I propose to start this change in 5.0,
> but frequent source builds of 4.* versions would make me change my mind.
The reason I do it that far back is that build tools should
match the build scripts. But if we agree not to use the central
build scripts for such old releases, but copy the build scripts
from a previous release, we might get away with
> In the placeholder files, I would prefer to see a hint that this is a
> snapshot build.
> I have inserted this and other comments below.
I don't agree on that, we can't always know for sure what the package
is based on the content on those files. In any case, with the info
in there now the user doesn't get lost. That the most important to me,
not to share to users how we build.
> Also, I don't exactly see how this changeset goes together with your
> "1.2216" changeset to 4.0, affecting only "Docs/Makefile.am".
> Could you please collapse them for review ?
I did some mistakes, that is why they are in separate changesets.
Might redo the whole thing to get it into one changeset later.
> kent@stripped wrote:
>> ChangeSet@stripped, 2007-11-02 12:29:13+01:00, kent@stripped +6 -0
>> mysql.info, INSTALL-BINARY, INSTALL-SOURCE, ReadMe.txt, Docs/Makefile.am:
>> Let place holders for real documentation have text that
>> makes sense to the user (Bug#25205)
>
> Please mention explicitly that this affects bsnapshout builds from the
> source trees only, not release tarballs.
In my opinion that doesn't matter. In a way they now have the same
content independently of how they are built, just that in one case
you have the doc inside the text file, in the other you have a link.
<snip>
>> --- 1.56/Docs/Makefile.am 2007-11-02 12:29:17 +01:00
>> +++ 1.57/Docs/Makefile.am 2007-11-02 12:29:17 +01:00
>> @@ -14,38 +14,15 @@
>> # along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
>> # Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
>> -noinst_SCRIPTS = Support/generate-text-files.pl
>> -
>> -EXTRA_DIST = $(noinst_SCRIPTS) mysql.info INSTALL-BINARY
>> -
>> -all: txt_files
>
> Is it really good to drop this first (= default) "make" target ?
> Also, is it good to have no "all" target any more ?
> I vote to keep it, even if we should not call it in our tools.
This is a automake input file, there should never be a "all" target.
In any case, not needed any longer as nothing is generated from this
file.
<snip>
>> --- New file ---
>> +++ Docs/INSTALL-BINARY 07/11/02 01:29:32
>
> Add a sentence here, telling something like:
>
> This is a snapshot build of some intermediate development state.
> These program versions have not been tested and verified by MySQL AB.
We have to agree to disagree, I think this is not the place for this
information.
<snip>
Thank you for reviewing,
kent
--
Kent Boortz, Senior Production Engineer
MySQL AB, www.mysql.com
Office: +46 18 174400 ext. 4450 (VoIP)
Office: +46 19 182931
Mobile: +46 70 2791171
