Re: Octave-Forge: requirement for a maintainer Makefile for release

[Juan Pablo Carbajal]

On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 12:40 AM, Juan Pablo Carbajal
<address@hidden> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 12:45 AM, Carnë Draug <address@hidden> wrote:
>> On 16 November 2016 at 14:47, Alexander Barth <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I am maintain currently 6 packages and I use a bash script to prepare
>>> a release (do a clean check out, remove unnecessary files such as
>>> .gitignore, make configure script, run tests, generate documentation
>>> ...)
>>>
>>> I think it would be good to have all these tasks at a central place (a
>>> bash script or a Makefile fragment) rather than to explicitly copy
>>> this logic in all 6 Makefiles. Otherwise it would be quite difficult
>>> to maintain the Makefiles in the long run.
>>>
>>
>> The problem with a central place with a unique script or Makefile for
>> releases is that it would impose a unique shape on all packages which
>> would be too restritive (or would have to be too complex to achieve
>> that flexibility).  For example, not all packages need to run autoconf
>> to create the configure script.  Some of those need also to run aclocal
>> before.  Some packages have directories for scripts and code snippets
>> that are removed from package releases.  The ltfat Octave package is
>> only part of a larger project.  I am sure there will be other cases.
>>
>> You can still keep all the 6 Makefile on your packages the same, it's
>> just that you would have to sync them when a change is made.  You can
>> even a one line Makefile that only calls your script (but your existing
>> script would still have to be committed on the six repos).  I would
>> guess that they wouldn't change much overtime so it wouldn't be too
>> much of a burden.
>>
>> Also, while it would be nice to also have targets on the Makefile to
>> run the tests and install development versions, I am only proposing
>> a target to make a release which can be this:
>>
>>     PACKAGE := $(shell grep "^Name: " DESCRIPTION | cut -f2 -d" ")
>>     VERSION := $(shell grep "^Version: " DESCRIPTION | cut -f2 -d" ")
>>
>>     TARGET_DIR := target/
>>     RELEASE_DIR     := $(TARGET_DIR)/$(PACKAGE)-$(VERSION)
>>     RELEASE_TARBALL := $(TARGET_DIR)/$(PACKAGE)-$(VERSION).tar.gz
>>
>>     .PHONY: dist
>>
>>     dist: $(RELEASE_TARBALL)
>>
>>     %.tar.gz: %
>>         tar -c -f - --posix -C "$(TARGET_DIR)/" "$(notdir $<)" | gzip -9n > 
>> "$@"
>>
>>     $(RELEASE_DIR): .git/index
>>         $(RM) -r "$@"
>>         git archive --format=tar --prefix="$@/" HEAD | tar -x
>>         $(RM) "$@/.gitignore"
>>         chmod -R a+rX,u+w,go-w "$@"
>>
>> I have also written a template [1] for the developers instructions based on
>> the existing Makefiles now present on the forge packages (the example above
>> is adapted from it).  Could you give any feedback if that can help?
>>
>> Carnë
>>
>> [1] 
>> http://hg.code.sf.net/p/octave/project-web/file/d2dd7f6a47d6/htdocs/templates/Makefile
>>
>
> Carne,
>
> The Makefile in templates will fail to make check with packages that
> have dependencies. They need ot be loaded. Mike fixed this in signal,
> then I improve it in geometry.
>
> DEPENDS := $(shell $(SED) -n -e 's/^Depends[^,]*, \(.*\)/\1/p'
> DESCRIPTION | $(SED) 's/ *([^()]*),*/ /g')
>
> check: all
> $(OCTAVE) --silent \
>  --eval 'if(!isempty("$(DEPENDS)")); pkg load $(DEPENDS); endif;' \
>  --eval 'addpath (fullfile ([pwd filesep "inst"]));' \
>  --eval '$(PKG_ADD)'\
>  --eval 'cellfun(@(x)runtests (x), __geometry_package_register__);'
>
> Same goes for make run

Hi,

I have merged what was nice form that makefile with the one in
geometry the result is in the repo [1].

make clean is currently unsafe, for example

make TARGET_DIR=/home/myuser all
make TARGET_DIR=/home/myuser clean

bye bye myuser folder!

instead of

$(RM) -r $(TARGET_DIR)

better use

$(RM) -r $(RELEASE_DIR) $(RELEASE_TARBALL) $(HTML_TARBALL) $(HTML_DIR)

[1]: https://sourceforge.net/p/octave/geometry/ci/default/tree/Makefile