Re: [Ltib] Fix + Optimization when checking for updated source

[Jehan Bing]

On 2012-03-23 02:00, Stuart Hughes wrote:
> Also the idea of directory builds is that when you've finished
> development and make a release, you select the normal (non dir-build)
> .spec file and that works from an archive (tarball) of a release.

And with symlinks, you just delete them before archiving. Not really 
more difficult and that keep the config in Ltib's menu simpler for the 
people who will use the archive.


> My biggest concern about using symlinks is that the expectation (other
> than directory builds) is that the area being worked on is sandboxed to
> rpm/BUILD/package, and so the control logic may not work if that
> assumption no longer holds.

Hmm, couldn't that be problem with a directory build pointing outside 
rpm/BUILD too? I mean with the directory build, "rpm/BUILD/package" 
doesn't exist at all so if something doesn't handle the directory build 
correctly, it could still break. At least with symlinks, 
rpm/BUILD/package is still valid.


> One final note, following symlinks in the find may cause some
> side-effects as it's possible/likely for a package to have symlinks to
> system areas which should not be followed.

I personally thought it was a good side effect. After all, if a package 
depends on something and that something changes, the package should be 
rebuilt. It shouldn't matter where that something is.
But in other case, it might not be so good either (a symlink to / would 
be awful). So in the end, it really depends on why and where that 
symlink points to. Both option are valid in my opinion.

That said I believe that following symlinks offers more flexibility. If 
"find" doesn't follow the symlinks, there is little one can do. If 
"find" does follow them when one doesn't want to, the symlinks could be 
created when building the package and deleted just afterwards, or the 
code could be patched to get the files directly to the correct location.


Anyway, I keep defending the symlinks but I don't really have a strong 
opinion either way.
I'll keep my version of ltib patched to follow symlinks because it will 
solve our problem with static libs. And having that, it becomes 
pointless to switch to using directory build (at least until we find 
something that does break)

Cheers,
        Jehan