Re: Tarball builds in the new world order - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Tarball builds in the new world order
Date
Msg-id 790492.1714333450@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Tarball builds in the new world order  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> Why is it that the .gitrevision file is only created here, instead of
> being added to the tarball that "git archive" produces?  Adding an
> argument like
>     --add-virtual-file $(distdir)/.gitrevision:$(GIT_REFSPEC)
> to the git archive call should suffice.

I think we don't want to do that.  In the first place, it's redundant
because "git archive" includes the commit hash in the tar header,
and in the second place it gets away from the concept that the tarball
contains exactly what is in our git tree.

Now admittedly, if anyone's built tooling that relies on the presence
of the .gitrevision file, they might prefer that we keep on including
it.  But I'm not sure anyone has, and in any case I think switching
to the git-approved way of incorporating the hash is the best thing
in the long run.

What I'm thinking of doing, as soon as we've sorted the tarball
creation process, is to make a test tarball available to the
packagers group so that anyone interested can start working on
updating their packaging process for the new approach.  Hopefully,
if anyone's especially unhappy about omitting .gitrevision, they'll
speak up.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: Refactoring backend fork+exec code
Next
From: Richard Guo
Date:
Subject: A failure in prepared_xacts test