[libvirt] [PATCH] doc: clone+build instructions

I realized it'd be nice to include instructions on how to build from a just-cloned repository, so copied most of this new file, README-hacking, from coreutils:
From 7ffc5ce3ebb0769c0edc9f6fa9dc25e315ffdcf3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jim Meyering <meyering@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 21:37:59 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] doc: clone+build instructions
* README-hacking: New file. * bootstrap: Remove obsolete comments. --- README-hacking | 74 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ bootstrap | 8 +----- 2 files changed, 75 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) create mode 100644 README-hacking diff --git a/README-hacking b/README-hacking new file mode 100644 index 0000000..3463da2 --- /dev/null +++ b/README-hacking @@ -0,0 +1,74 @@ +-*- outline -*- + +These notes intend to help people working on the checked-out sources. +These requirements do not apply when building from a distribution tarball. +See also HACKING for more detailed libvirt contribution guidelines. + +* Requirements + +We've opted to keep only the highest-level sources in the GIT repository. +This eases our maintenance burden, (fewer merges etc.), but imposes more +requirements on anyone wishing to build from the just-checked-out sources. +Note the requirements to build the released archive are much less and +are just the requirements of the standard ./configure && make procedure. +Specific development tools and versions will be checked for and listed by +the bootstrap script. See README-prereq for specific notes on obtaining +these prerequisite tools. + +Valgrind <http://valgrind.org/> is also highly recommended, if +Valgrind supports your architecture. See also README-valgrind. + +While building from a just-cloned source tree may require installing a +few prerequisites, later, a plain `git pull && make' should be sufficient. + +* First GIT checkout + +You can get a copy of the source repository like this: + + $ git clone git://libvirt.org/libvirt + $ cd libvirt + +The next step is to get and check other files needed to build, +which are extracted from other source packages: + + $ ./bootstrap + +Then run this to create e.g., Makefiles and ./configure, +and to invoke ./configure: + + $ ./autogen.sh + +And there you are! Just + + $ make + $ make check + +At this point, there should be no difference between your local copy, +and the GIT master copy: + + $ git diff + +should output no difference. + +Enjoy! + +----- + +Copyright (C) 2002-2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc. + +This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify +it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by +the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or +(at your option) any later version. + +This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, +but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of +MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the +GNU General Public License for more details. + +You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License +along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>. + +Local Variables: +indent-tabs-mode: nil +End: diff --git a/bootstrap b/bootstrap index 0754d02..8b81e0e 100755 --- a/bootstrap +++ b/bootstrap @@ -1,11 +1,5 @@ #!/bin/sh -# Run this after autogen.sh, to pull in all of the gnulib-related bits. -# It's important to run *after* autogen.sh, since it updates some of -# the same files autogen.sh does, yet those from gnulib are newer, -# and match the tests. So if a gnulib bug has been fixed since the -# snapshot taken for whatever gettext release you're using, yet you -# run "make check" against the wrong version, the corresponding unit -# test in gl-tests/ may well fail. +# Run this before autogen.sh, to pull in all of the gnulib-related bits. usage() { echo >&2 "\ -- 1.6.3.3.524.g8586b

On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 10:28:35PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
I realized it'd be nice to include instructions on how to build from a just-cloned repository, so copied most of this new file, README-hacking, from coreutils: [...] +Copyright (C) 2002-2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc. + +This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify +it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by +the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or +(at your option) any later version. + +This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, +but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of +MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the +GNU General Public License for more details. + +You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License +along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
Good idea but let's keep things LGPL :-) ACK once changed to proper Licence Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ daniel@veillard.com | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/

Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 10:28:35PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
I realized it'd be nice to include instructions on how to build from a just-cloned repository, so copied most of this new file, README-hacking, from coreutils: [...] +Copyright (C) 2002-2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc. + +This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify +it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by +the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or +(at your option) any later version. + +This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, +but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of +MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the +GNU General Public License for more details. + +You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License +along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
Good idea but let's keep things LGPL :-)
ACK once changed to proper Licence
Doesn't the LGPL vs. GPL(3) issue matter only for something that is linked into the library? For example, build-related scripts are all LGPLv3, and that's fine, right? At least gnulib-tool knows enough to allow that, since e.g., the gitlog-to-changelog "module" specifies that it is a GPL'd build tool: $ grep -A1 Lic .gnulib/modules/gitlog-to-changelog License: GPLed build tool

On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 08:17:01AM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 10:28:35PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
I realized it'd be nice to include instructions on how to build from a just-cloned repository, so copied most of this new file, README-hacking, from coreutils: [...] +Copyright (C) 2002-2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc. + +This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify +it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by +the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or +(at your option) any later version. + +This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, +but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of +MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the +GNU General Public License for more details. + +You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License +along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
Good idea but let's keep things LGPL :-)
ACK once changed to proper Licence
Doesn't the LGPL vs. GPL(3) issue matter only for something that is linked into the library?
A README in the top level directory exposing a GPL licence is an invitation to confusion. So no I stand by this, too bad if this means we need to rewrite the part instead of copying it. Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ daniel@veillard.com | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/

Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 08:17:01AM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 10:28:35PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
I realized it'd be nice to include instructions on how to build from a just-cloned repository, so copied most of this new file, README-hacking, from coreutils: [...] +Copyright (C) 2002-2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc. + +This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify +it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by +the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or +(at your option) any later version. + +This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, +but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of +MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the +GNU General Public License for more details. + +You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License +along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
Good idea but let's keep things LGPL :-)
ACK once changed to proper Licence
Doesn't the LGPL vs. GPL(3) issue matter only for something that is linked into the library?
A README in the top level directory exposing a GPL licence is an invitation to confusion. So no I stand by this, too bad if this means we need to rewrite the part instead of copying it.
How about if I just remove the copyright notice from that new file (README-hacking)? Besides, then it'll be consistent with README, which has none.

On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 09:32:00AM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
Daniel Veillard wrote:
A README in the top level directory exposing a GPL licence is an invitation to confusion. So no I stand by this, too bad if this means we need to rewrite the part instead of copying it.
How about if I just remove the copyright notice from that new file (README-hacking)? Besides, then it'll be consistent with README, which has none.
Just fine by me :-) I assumed the copyright notice was there on purpose ! Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ daniel@veillard.com | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/

Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 09:32:00AM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
Daniel Veillard wrote:
A README in the top level directory exposing a GPL licence is an invitation to confusion. So no I stand by this, too bad if this means we need to rewrite the part instead of copying it.
How about if I just remove the copyright notice from that new file (README-hacking)? Besides, then it'll be consistent with README, which has none.
Just fine by me :-) I assumed the copyright notice was there on purpose !
Pushed. BTW, it was deliberate, in the original. Nearly every file in coreutils (even ChangeLog!) has some sort of copyright notice. I toe the line there, but sometimes it seems excessive.
participants (2)
-
Daniel Veillard
-
Jim Meyering