[openssl-project] To distribute just the repo file, or the result of 'make dist'?

[Matt Caswell]

On 24/07/18 14:50, Richard Levitte wrote:
> In message <20180724122839.GA2433 at roeckx.be> on Tue, 24 Jul 2018 14:28:40 +0200, Kurt Roeckx <kurt at roeckx.be> said:
> 
> kurt> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 02:08:46PM +0200, Richard Levitte wrote:
> kurt> > 
> kurt> > The original intention (way back, I think we're even talking SSLeay
> kurt> > time here, but at the very least pre-1.0.0 time) was to make a tarball
> kurt> > that can be built directly with just a 'make' on any Unix box and
> kurt> > without requiring perl.
> kurt> 
> kurt> I don't see how that could work our current system. As far as I
> kurt> know, it's actually confired for a system, and it will not work
> kurt> properly on an other. It would just work on the same system as
> kurt> that we ran config on.
> 
> Hmm?  The dist target (Configurations/dist.conf) creates a *very*
> generic Makefile with no system specific files.  It assumes LP32 and
> very generic C compiler command line.  It doesn't support assembler
> modules, threads or shared libraries...  that cuts away quite a lot of

Which means it is essentially useless for most purposes.

> system dependencies.  The only thing that's needed to make the
> resulting directory tree free of the need for perl is 'make
> build_all_generated'.
> 
> kurt> > 1.  Don't release pre-configured tarballs.  This is a very simple
> kurt> >     thing to do, all we have to do is use 'make tar' to create
> kurt> >     tarballs instead of 'make dist'.  We could remove the dist target
> kurt> >     entirely while we're at it.
> kurt> 
> kurt> This makes most sense to me.
> 
> Yes, it does to me as well, especially considering we're encouraging
> everyone to configure anyway.
> 

I agree.

Matt