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

[Juan Pablo Carbajal]

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Carnë Draug <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 29 November 2016 at 23:40, Juan Pablo Carbajal <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>
> Can you make the change and push it [1]?  And add some comments about
> what it is for, and that may not be necessary for all packages?
>
> On 30 November 2016 at 01:16, Juan Pablo Carbajal <address@hidden> wrote:
>> [...]
>> 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)
>
> It would be unsafe if the package maintainer set up TARGET_DIR to his
> own home directory but yeah I can imagine someone doing it by accident.
> I still prefer the current code on the template because it will also
> clean releases other than the current version (which I guess is more
> frequent in packages with stable and default branche).
>
> Can you make your proposed change on the clean target then and add a comment
> that it will not clean all older builds and how to change?
>
> Thank you
> Carnë
>
> [1] http://hg.code.sf.net/p/octave/project-web

Done,

I couldn't check it (no time!).
I guess you could improve the DEPENDS part to be like the others. I
did not check how you are using cut, but seems much simpler.

I also suggest using runtests instead of an undocumented function, if
the objective is to make the thing readable.

You are free to reject any of the changes.

Cheers