#48111 "make clean" wipes out original files
Closed: Fixed None Opened 4 years ago by nhosoi.

Following files are found wiped out:

ldap/admin/src/scripts/dbmon.sh
ldap/ldif/50replication-plugins.ldif
ldap/ldif/90betxn-plugins.ldif
ldap/ldif/50posix-winsync-plugin.ldif

The following make fails with:
make[1]: *** No rule to make target ldap/admin/src/scripts/dbmon.sh', needed byall-am'. Stop.


I can see you have autoconf generated files stored in git. I would provide patch for updated files, but it would contain lot of changes.

{{{
sh$ git status
On branch master
Your branch is ahead of 'origin/master' by 1 commit.
(use "git push" to publish your local commits)
Changes not staged for commit:
(use "git add <file>..." to update what will be committed)
(use "git checkout -- <file>..." to discard changes in working directory)

    modified:   Makefile.in
    modified:   aclocal.m4
    modified:   config.h.in
    modified:   configure
    modified:   ltmain.sh
    modified:   missing

Untracked files:
(use "git add <file>..." to include in what will be committed)

    m4/libtool.m4
    m4/ltoptions.m4
    m4/ltsugar.m4
    m4/ltversion.m4
    m4/lt~obsolete.m4

}}}

It is possible I have different version of autotools and libtool on my machine.

Replying to [comment:1 lslebodn]:

I can see you have autoconf generated files stored in git. I would provide patch for updated files, but it would contain lot of changes.

It is possible I have different version of autotools and libtool on my machine.

Yeah, my autogen.sh just updates Makefile.in.

I have these versions. What is yours?
autoconf-2.69-14.fc20.noarch
automake-1.13.4-6.fc20.noarch
libtool-2.4.2-24.fc20.x86_64

Replying to [comment:3 nhosoi]:

Replying to [comment:1 lslebodn]:

I can see you have autoconf generated files stored in git. I would provide patch for updated files, but it would contain lot of changes.

It is possible I have different version of autotools and libtool on my machine.

Yeah, my autogen.sh just updates Makefile.in.

I have these versions. What is yours?
autoconf-2.69-14.fc20.noarch
automake-1.13.4-6.fc20.noarch
libtool-2.4.2-24.fc20.x86_64
I use fedora 21

{{{
sh$ rpm -q autoconf automake libtool
autoconf-2.69-16.fc21.noarch
automake-1.14.1-5.fc21.noarch
libtool-2.4.2-31.fc21.x86_64
}}}

I tested this patch (w. running autogen.sh) and verified repeated "make clean; make" does not break the build.

Attachment 0001-Ticket-48111-make-clean-wipes-out-original-files.patch​

Regarding the autotools, your version is newer. It makes sense for you to check the generated files in. We'd like to avoid to go backward...

Thank you, Lukas!

Ok, but please send a note to 389-devel that we are now using autotools from f21 so that people working on f20 will not regress the version.

I can generate autotools files on fedora 20.

I don't mind.

lslebodn> Should I send patch including autotools genereated files from fedora 21?

Yes, please. You could make 2 patches. One is for Makefile.am (you've already done it) and another for the generated files and attach the second patch to this ticket, too.

Since the Makefile.am patch is already reviewed, please go ahead and push the both patches to the git master branch.

Regarding the autotools, your version is newer. It makes sense for you to check the generated files in. We'd like to avoid to go backward...
Sorry, this comment was not clear enough. It's a simple rule for the auto-generated files. Currently, they are created by the autotools on F20. This way, the generated files' diffs are kept minimum. But we have to upgrade to F21 some time. Since you've worked on this ticket using F21, it could be a good timing, I thought. Once we move to F21 tools, we don't want to go back to F20. So, we'd like you to send a note to 389-devel to use F21 autotools from now on, once you push the F21-made second patch as Rich commented in the comment 6. Or you could still use F20 autotools and skip the sending note task for now. It's up to you. ;)

Replying to [comment:8 nhosoi]:

lslebodn> Should I send patch including autotools genereated files from fedora 21?

Yes, please. You could make 2 patches. One is for Makefile.am (you've already done it) and another for the generated files and attach the second patch to this ticket, too.

I decide to update generated files on fedora 20. I have already moved to fedora 22 (alpha) and I'm not regular contributor to 389-ds.

Therefore just one patch is attached. The change in generated files was very simple.

Since the Makefile.am patch is already reviewed, please go ahead and push the both patches to the git master branch.

I do not have a right to push patch.

If you have any question about autotools in future just ping me. I might know an answer.

Replying to [comment:9 lslebodn]:

Replying to [comment:8 nhosoi]:

lslebodn> Should I send patch including autotools genereated files from fedora 21?

Yes, please. You could make 2 patches. One is for Makefile.am (you've already done it) and another for the generated files and attach the second patch to this ticket, too.

I decide to update generated files on fedora 20. I have already moved to fedora 22 (alpha) and I'm not regular contributor to 389-ds.

Therefore just one patch is attached. The change in generated files was very simple.

Since the Makefile.am patch is already reviewed, please go ahead and push the both patches to the git master branch.

I do not have a right to push patch.

If you have any question about autotools in future just ping me. I might know an answer.

Thank you, Lukas. Then, I'm going to push your original patch + my generated files on F20 which only includes Makefile.in.

Once again, thank you so much for your contribution.

Ah, I misunderstood your comment, Lukas. Thank you, you already autogen'ed on the same version as mine.

I just push it on behalf of you and close this ticket as "fixed".
8583012..308c1bb master -> master
commit 308c1bb

Metadata Update from @lslebodn:
- Issue assigned to lslebodn
- Issue set to the milestone: 1.3.4 backlog

2 years ago

Login to comment on this ticket.

Metadata