preparing to 4.5.19 release

[Dmitry V. Levin]

On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 10:49:30AM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > Yes, there are no problem, at least for those who just build strace from
> > tarball.  But there are people who still list tarball contents before use.
> > Maybe it's some kind of a taste, but for me it would be a bit more fair if
> > each file timestamp in tarball would correspond to the last file change.
> 
> You still haven't said exactly what you are proposing.

I propose to build release tarballs from clean checked out source, and
to set file timestamps right after checkout, e.g.

git clone /path/to/strace.git &&
cd strace &&
git-set-file-times &&
autoreconf -i &&
./configure --enable-maintainer-mode &&
TAR_OPTIONS='--owner=0 --group=0 --numeric-owner --mode=go-w,go+rX' make distcheck

A few words about TAR_OPTIONS:
"--owner=0 --group=0 --numeric-owner" is used to avoid information
disclosure, and "--mode=go-w,go+rX" is advisable to avoid umask side
effects.

Maybe we could sacrifice portability and add this TAR_OPTIONS definition to
Makefile.am


-- 
ldv
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.strace.io/pipermail/strace-devel/attachments/20091010/729df901/attachment.bin>