Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

file .ck00MAN should not be in the tree #93

Open
filbo opened this issue May 25, 2020 · 7 comments
Open

file .ck00MAN should not be in the tree #93

filbo opened this issue May 25, 2020 · 7 comments
Labels
bug Something isn't working

Comments

@filbo
Copy link

filbo commented May 25, 2020

.ck00MAN is a build/install output file. Its presence means that the 'manifest check' does not run unless you answer in the non-default affirmative to the second question in this dialog:

You can call the Inventory script directly at any time to take
inventory.  You can inhibit the inventory step permanently by
creating the file ./.neverInv, and you can tell the Configure script
to skip the inventory and customization steps with the -n option.

Do you want to take inventory (y|n) [y]? 

======================================================================

The lsof distribution inventory in 00MANIFEST has already been checked.

Do you want to check the inventory again (y|n) [n]? 

Running it generates the following error outputs (minus all the success outputs):

Examining .: ERROR
    File ./lsof.8 is missing. ++++
    File ./lsof.man is missing. ++++
Examining ./dialects/uw/uw7:
    Subdirectory ./dialects/uw/uw7/vm is missing. ++++
Examining ./dialects/uw/uw7/vm: ERROR
    Subdirectory ./dialects/uw/uw7/vm is missing. ++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+                                             +
+  SOME FILES OR DIRECTORIES MAY BE MISSING!  +
+                                             +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Lack of running the manifest check has led to the manifest being out of date. lsof.8 is now Lsof.8, lsof.man is no longer being provided, and the empty directory dialects/uw/uw7/vm no longer exists. (These omissions affect the 'osr' and probably the 'osr6' and 'uw' Configure targets, but they aren't currently supported so that's OK. I can step up to support those targets, if that's OK.)

To fix:

  1. remove .ck00MAN

  2. add empty directory dialects/uw/uw7/vm

  3. figure out what to do about lsof.8 vs Lsof.8:

  • 00MANIFEST mentions Lsof.8
  • all of the individual dialect Makefiles look for lsof.8
  • Lsof.8 is used only by support/makeman; the whole support/ subdirectory appears to be Vic Abell's private lsof-FTP-site-maintenance suite
  1. fix dialects/osr/Makefile to treat lsof.8 as other dialects do

I can submit changes later, just wanted to submit my findings before I lose track of them.

@masatake
Copy link
Contributor

@filbo, are you interested in maintaining the uw dialect?

@filbo
Copy link
Author

filbo commented May 30, 2020

I can maintain the 'osr' (and 'osrgcc') dialect(s) with 10+ years experience working on that product; I can maintain 'osr6' and 'uw' with moderately passing familiarity + access to people with deep knowledge.

@masatake
Copy link
Contributor

O.k. We should not delete osr and uw dialects as far as you are here.

@filbo
Copy link
Author

filbo commented Jun 2, 2020

I serious think you shouldn't delete any dialects. You have a list of supported dialects, which is shorter than the list of implemented dialects. If someone raises a bug about an unsupported dialect, the response is: ok, please fix it yourself (themself), or find a maintainer for it. Not 'rip it out'.

@masatake
Copy link
Contributor

masatake commented Jun 5, 2020

I don't agree with you. However, I, the person who wants to remove unmaintained dialects, don't have enough time for removing the dialects. So I think the removing will not be occurred in lsof-4.x series.

@masatake masatake added the bug Something isn't working label Jun 7, 2020
@masatake masatake mentioned this issue Jun 7, 2020
7 tasks
@masatake
Copy link
Contributor

masatake commented Jun 7, 2020

I have invited you to this organization.

@dilinger
Copy link
Contributor

I actually think we should delete the uw dialect in particular. See #274 for the rationale. In Debian, we've been manually stripping those headers out for years before packaging the lsof source.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants