Mention sorting MANIFEST in perlhack.pod

Mention sorting MANIFEST in perlhack.pod

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:05:21 -0400, "Jerry D.
Hedden" <jdheddencpan.org>
wrote:

> Mention sorting MANIFEST in perlhack.pod

--- perl-current/pod/perlhack.pod	2007-04-02
15:07:40.000000000 -0400
+++ perl-patched/pod/perlhack.pod	2007-04-16
10:02:16.000000000 -0400
 -603,7
+603,8 
 branch get applied to maintenance versions.
 Your patch should also update the documentation and test
suite.  See
-L<Writing a test>.
+L<Writing a test>.  If your patch contains new files,
add them to the
+MANIFEST file, and then sort it using C<make
manisort>.
 Patching documentation also follows the same order: if
accepted, a patch
 is first applied to B<development>, and if relevant
then it's backported

I'd rather see something like

If your patch adds new files, make sure to include the
change that is
needed for MANIFEST to show the presence of these new files
in the
CORE distribution. See also C<make manisort>.


Your snippet suggests that changing MANIFEST itself is
enough, but the
patch should reflect the change.

-- 
H.Merijn Brand         Amsterdam Perl Mongers (http://amsterdam.pm.org/
)
using & porting perl 5.6.2, 5.8.x, 5.9.x   on HP-UX
10.20, 11.00, 11.11,
& 11.23, SuSE 10.0 & 10.2, AIX 4.3 & 5.2, and
Cygwin. http://qa.perl.org
http://mirrors.de
velooper.com/hpux/            http://www.test-smoke.org
                        http
://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:44:36 -0400, "Jerry D.
Hedden" <jdheddencpan.org>
wrote:

> Okay, how about the following:
> 
> Your patch should update the documentation and test
suite.  See "Writing a
> test".  If you have added or removed files in the
distribution, edit the
> MANIFEST file accordingly, sort the MANIFEST file using
C<make manisort>,
> and include those changes as part of your patch.
> 
> (patch attached)

Near perfect  Applied in
#30968
I did leave in the L<> ref, and ended up with this:

 -602,8
+602,10 
 maint branch.  Only patches that survive the heat of the
development
 branch get applied to maintenance versions.

-Your patch should also update the documentation and test
suite.  See
-L<Writing a test>.
+Your patch should update the documentation and test suite. 
See
+L<Writing a test>.  If you have added or removed
files in the distribution,
+edit the MANIFEST file accordingly, sort the MANIFEST file
using
+C<make manisort>, and include those changes as part
of your patch.

 Patching documentation also follows the same order: if
accepted, a patch
 is first applied to B<development>, and if relevant
then it's backported


-- 
H.Merijn Brand         Amsterdam Perl Mongers (http://amsterdam.pm.org/
)
using & porting perl 5.6.2, 5.8.x, 5.9.x   on HP-UX
10.20, 11.00, 11.11,
& 11.23, SuSE 10.0 & 10.2, AIX 4.3 & 5.2, and
Cygwin. http://qa.perl.org
http://mirrors.de
velooper.com/hpux/            http://www.test-smoke.org
                        http
://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:00:39 +0000, Tels
<nospam-abusebloodgate.com> wrote:

> On Monday 16 April 2007 14:44:36 Jerry D. Hedden
wrote:
> > Okay, how about the following:
> >
> > Your patch should update the documentation and
test suite.  See "Writing
> > a test".  If you have added or removed files
in the distribution, edit
> > the MANIFEST file accordingly, sort the MANIFEST
file using C<make
> > manisort>, and include those changes as part of
your patch.
> 
> Is there a:
> 
> 	make manifest

No, but there is 'make manicheck' and 'make manisort'
Both only available once the Makefile has been created, and
thus completely
useless if there is no MANIFEST yet, which is needed by
Configure to create
the Makefile in the first place.

> ? That would make adding files much simpler.

-- 
H.Merijn Brand         Amsterdam Perl Mongers (http://amsterdam.pm.org/
)
using & porting perl 5.6.2, 5.8.x, 5.9.x   on HP-UX
10.20, 11.00, 11.11,
& 11.23, SuSE 10.0 & 10.2, AIX 4.3 & 5.2, and
Cygwin. http://qa.perl.org
http://mirrors.de
velooper.com/hpux/            http://www.test-smoke.org
                        http
://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Moin,

On Monday 16 April 2007 15:06:11 H.Merijn Brand wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:00:39 +0000, Tels
<nospam-abusebloodgate.com> 
wrote:
> > On Monday 16 April 2007 14:44:36 Jerry D. Hedden
wrote:
> > > Okay, how about the following:
> > >
> > > Your patch should update the documentation
and test suite.  See
> > > "Writing a test".  If you have
added or removed files in the
> > > distribution, edit the MANIFEST file
accordingly, sort the MANIFEST
> > > file using C<make manisort>, and
include those changes as part of
> > > your patch.
> >
> > Is there a:
> >
> > 	make manifest
>
> No, but there is 'make manicheck' and 'make manisort'
> Both only available once the Makefile has been created,
and thus
> completely useless if there is no MANIFEST yet, which
is needed by
> Configure to create the Makefile in the first place.

Sorry for being unclear, but for "normal" Perl
packages, you simple add an 
appropriate MANIFEST.SKIP file (listing expressions of files
that should 
never be added) and then do:

	perl Makefile.PL
	* patch stuff, add/delete files*
	make manifest

and this step *updates" the MANIFEST file, listing what
files were added or 
deleted. (This depends a bit on which kind of build utility
you use, I 
think).

I am using this a lot as keeping track of stuff in MANIFEST
manually is 
boring and error prone. And since we were talking about
adding files to the 
already exisiting MANIFEST file.... 

All the best,

Tels


- -- 
 Signed on Mon Apr 16 18:13:28 2007 with key 0x93B84C15.
 Get one of my photo posters: http://bloodgate.com/pos
ters
 PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/te
ls.asc or per email.

 "Duke Nukem Forever will come out before Unreal
2."

  -- George Broussard, 2001 (http://tinyurl.com/6m8nh
)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iQEVAwUBRiO9YncLPEOTuEwVAQLsuwf+NjbFjJ8+Jh+b3nqHrdz2jzO/ydkp
mfVE
FtLSuREGNF6DXH1nzy6o3mLSaPkS77qV3mcC+XsuKdJjZtTFA31BuZ/T3GDw
d9UE
hhAJ0RpAZT3rJgnfRP/ck3A7rcBKA5SWGOqWletJuSOTE4RXPqVjyHXu9XUL
EGhS
md3KUwwzx7gpmqRypYKIgU7LT/wW1k6oxr1q7dfHh7zcc6yK6BAL3jrXtTof
4ojM
9Dir8I2nzIB5pfitZSEnfpWVEwOIF3FMZgw9NZ1O0Qn8lTbhqfXBOgurlgVz
n9qZ
LHj5HuYIbdVSNpkN5ObVHHwog+8iWBumtKJI27xyMLOK6GjcMwCPnA==
=YGpJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 18:15:47 +0000, Tels
<nospam-abusebloodgate.com> wrote:

> On Monday 16 April 2007 15:06:11 H.Merijn Brand wrote:
> > On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:00:39 +0000, Tels
<nospam-abusebloodgate.com> 
> wrote:
> > > On Monday 16 April 2007 14:44:36 Jerry D.
Hedden wrote:
> > > > Okay, how about the following:
> > > >
> > > > Your patch should update the
documentation and test suite.  See
> > > > "Writing a test".  If you have
added or removed files in the
> > > > distribution, edit the MANIFEST file
accordingly, sort the MANIFEST
> > > > file using C<make manisort>, and
include those changes as part of
> > > > your patch.
> > >
> > > Is there a:
> > >
> > > 	make manifest
> >
> > No, but there is 'make manicheck' and 'make
manisort'
> > Both only available once the Makefile has been
created, and thus
> > completely useless if there is no MANIFEST yet,
which is needed by
> > Configure to create the Makefile in the first
place.
> 
> Sorry for being unclear, but for "normal"
Perl packages, you simple add an 
> appropriate MANIFEST.SKIP file (listing expressions of
files that should 
> never be added) and then do:
> 
> 	perl Makefile.PL
> 	* patch stuff, add/delete files*
> 	make manifest
> 
> and this step *updates" the MANIFEST file, listing
what files were added or 
> deleted. (This depends a bit on which kind of build
utility you use, I 
> think).

Remember that we are talking CORE here, and we cannot assume
that there
already is a working/usable perl interpreter available. Once
there is,
It is probably more work to update the MANIFEST.SKIP with
all the files
that 'make distclean' knows about than it is to ask people
that like to
patch against the core to simply include the change to
MANIFEST.

> I am using this a lot as keeping track of stuff in
MANIFEST manually is 
> boring and error prone. And since we were talking about
adding files to the 
> already exisiting MANIFEST file.... 


-- 
H.Merijn Brand         Amsterdam Perl Mongers (http://amsterdam.pm.org/
)
using & porting perl 5.6.2, 5.8.x, 5.9.x   on HP-UX
10.20, 11.00, 11.11,
& 11.23, SuSE 10.0 & 10.2, AIX 4.3 & 5.2, and
Cygwin. http://qa.perl.org
http://mirrors.de
velooper.com/hpux/            http://www.test-smoke.org
                        http
://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Moin,

On Monday 16 April 2007 16:29:11 H.Merijn Brand wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 18:15:47 +0000, Tels
<nospam-abusebloodgate.com> 
wrote:
> > On Monday 16 April 2007 15:06:11 H.Merijn Brand
wrote:
> > > On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:00:39 +0000, Tels
<nospam-abusebloodgate.com>
> >
> > wrote:
> > > > On Monday 16 April 2007 14:44:36 Jerry
D. Hedden wrote:
> > > > > Okay, how about the following:
> > > > >
> > > > > Your patch should update the
documentation and test suite.  See
> > > > > "Writing a test".  If you
have added or removed files in the
> > > > > distribution, edit the MANIFEST
file accordingly, sort the
> > > > > MANIFEST file using C<make
manisort>, and include those changes
> > > > > as part of your patch.
> > > >
> > > > Is there a:
> > > >
> > > > 	make manifest
> > >
> > > No, but there is 'make manicheck' and 'make
manisort'
> > > Both only available once the Makefile has
been created, and thus
> > > completely useless if there is no MANIFEST
yet, which is needed by
> > > Configure to create the Makefile in the first
place.
> >
> > Sorry for being unclear, but for
"normal" Perl packages, you simple add
> > an appropriate MANIFEST.SKIP file (listing
expressions of files that
> > should never be added) and then do:
> >
> > 	perl Makefile.PL
> > 	* patch stuff, add/delete files*
> > 	make manifest
> >
> > and this step *updates" the MANIFEST file,
listing what files were
> > added or deleted. (This depends a bit on which
kind of build utility
> > you use, I think).
>
> Remember that we are talking CORE here, and we cannot
assume that there
> already is a working/usable perl interpreter available.


The:

	make manifest

step would be only used by someone who added a file to the
CORE, before 
sending in a patch. So he can either do it manually (as it
is done now), or 
use the automatic way.

I don't see why adding a nice new shiny automated way of
fiddling with 
MANIFEST is something we *wouldn't* want to do.

> Once there is, 
> It is probably more work to update the MANIFEST.SKIP
with all the files
> that 'make distclean' knows about than it is to ask
people that like to
> patch against the core to simply include the change to
MANIFEST.

I was talking about making it easier for these people to
include this 
change. But I knew that somebody would come along and say
"it is more work 
to automate this so let everyone do it manually for all
time" :-(

all the best,

tels

- -- 
 Signed on Mon Apr 16 18:52:54 2007 with key 0x93B84C15.
 Get one of my photo posters: http://bloodgate.com/pos
ters
 PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/te
ls.asc or per email.

 "C is a language that combines all the elegance and
power of assembly
 language with all the readability and maintainability of
assembly
 language"

  -- unknown
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iQEVAwUBRiPGnncLPEOTuEwVAQKWQwf+Pzexr3IEG9dKo+OZd0id0KPn1VBj
rDCT
DiZmuUiG/k/PZowblTHpi2HVoL50/gbG8d/G1vC1xs+W3Jv2KeXsmohIrXTx
iYdR
Eplm9qQb1nnwhUgyvf5IOJ1YJKE6Lv9i/VCsL+oHt7whPpUsTXNoEmVt3BIP
CRQg
zcGXABcOoUbePCi0iUpJPzxfPtiUC+mlCf6k0FAdoiGoQWFCsXxyOXvNzxfO
z2AR
yFWFkElD5W9amC9jnO0dQJZu9xQNtt5ORLsJ0lBQjpwPZVJfgrYuhHcM1MJ3
WDsX
YdtAfLGGSAZwNWj4w1eWbBquBu+GiayW+MQYzdNCdDg9+RzSl+THuw==
=yu2p
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 18:55:25 +0000, Tels
<nospam-abusebloodgate.com> wrote:

> On Monday 16 April 2007 16:29:11 H.Merijn Brand wrote:
> > On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 18:15:47 +0000, Tels
<nospam-abusebloodgate.com> 
> wrote:
> > > On Monday 16 April 2007 15:06:11 H.Merijn
Brand wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:00:39 +0000, Tels
<nospam-abusebloodgate.com>
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > > On Monday 16 April 2007 14:44:36
Jerry D. Hedden wrote:
> > > > > > Okay, how about the
following:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your patch should update the
documentation and test suite.  See
> > > > > > "Writing a test". 
If you have added or removed files in the
> > > > > > distribution, edit the
MANIFEST file accordingly, sort the
> > > > > > MANIFEST file using C<make
manisort>, and include those changes
> > > > > > as part of your patch.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is there a:
> > > > >
> > > > > 	make manifest
> > > >
> > > > No, but there is 'make manicheck' and
'make manisort'
> > > > Both only available once the Makefile
has been created, and thus
> > > > completely useless if there is no
MANIFEST yet, which is needed by
> > > > Configure to create the Makefile in the
first place.
> > >
> > > Sorry for being unclear, but for
"normal" Perl packages, you simple add
> > > an appropriate MANIFEST.SKIP file (listing
expressions of files that
> > > should never be added) and then do:
> > >
> > > 	perl Makefile.PL
> > > 	* patch stuff, add/delete files*
> > > 	make manifest
> > >
> > > and this step *updates" the MANIFEST
file, listing what files were
> > > added or deleted. (This depends a bit on
which kind of build utility
> > > you use, I think).
> >
> > Remember that we are talking CORE here, and we
cannot assume that there
> > already is a working/usable perl interpreter
available. 
> 
> The:
> 
> 	make manifest
> 
> step would be only used by someone who added a file to
the CORE, before 
> sending in a patch. So he can either do it manually (as
it is done now), or 
> use the automatic way.

How big is the chance he/she forgets that step? Even if we
create this
new shine entry in the Makefile, no-one will guarantee us it
is going to
be used. Personally I still think that everyone who ever
*added* files
to the core (outside of the committers, who have to deal
with perforce)
was either told to do the MANIFEST next time, or found out
pretty soon
after the patch was applied and people started to complain


> I don't see why adding a nice new shiny automated way
of fiddling with 
> MANIFEST is something we *wouldn't* want to do.
> 
> > Once there is, 
> > It is probably more work to update the
MANIFEST.SKIP with all the files
> > that 'make distclean' knows about than it is to
ask people that like to
> > patch against the core to simply include the
change to MANIFEST.
> 
> I was talking about making it easier for these people
to include this 
> change. But I knew that somebody would come along and
say "it is more
> work to automate this so let everyone do it manually
for all time" :-(

Come along with a patch and we'll see 
I'm not trying to convince your wrong. I'm just (overly)
sceptic.

-- 
H.Merijn Brand         Amsterdam Perl Mongers (http://amsterdam.pm.org/
)
using & porting perl 5.6.2, 5.8.x, 5.9.x   on HP-UX
10.20, 11.00, 11.11,
& 11.23, SuSE 10.0 & 10.2, AIX 4.3 & 5.2, and
Cygwin. http://qa.perl.org
http://mirrors.de
velooper.com/hpux/            http://www.test-smoke.org
                        http
://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Moin,

On Monday 16 April 2007 17:01:50 H.Merijn Brand wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 18:55:25 +0000, Tels
<nospam-abusebloodgate.com> 
wrote:
> > On Monday 16 April 2007 16:29:11 H.Merijn Brand
wrote:
> > > On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 18:15:47 +0000, Tels
<nospam-abusebloodgate.com>
[snip]
> > step would be only used by someone who added a
file to the CORE, before
> > sending in a patch. So he can either do it
manually (as it is done
> > now), or use the automatic way.
>
> How big is the chance he/she forgets that step? Even if
we create this
> new shine entry in the Makefile, no-one will guarantee
us it is going to
> be used. Personally I still think that everyone who
ever *added* files
> to the core (outside of the committers, who have to
deal with perforce)
> was either told to do the MANIFEST next time, or found
out pretty soon
> after the patch was applied and people started to
complain 

Yeah, but I am all for automating boring stuff and not
making people finding 
out the hard way later...

> > I don't see why adding a nice new shiny automated
way of fiddling with
> > MANIFEST is something we *wouldn't* want to do.
> >
> > > Once there is,
> > > It is probably more work to update the
MANIFEST.SKIP with all the
> > > files that 'make distclean' knows about than
it is to ask people that
> > > like to patch against the core to simply
include the change to
> > > MANIFEST.
> >
> > I was talking about making it easier for these
people to include this
> > change. But I knew that somebody would come along
and say "it is more
> > work to automate this so let everyone do it
manually for all time" :-(
>
> Come along with a patch and we'll see 

I knew you would say this...

> I'm not trying to convince your wrong. I'm just
(overly) sceptic.

All the best,

Tels

- -- 
 Signed on Mon Apr 16 20:09:13 2007 with key 0x93B84C15.
 Get one of my photo posters: http://bloodgate.com/pos
ters
 PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/te
ls.asc or per email.

 "There are three things I have always loved and never
understood - art,
 music, and women."

  -- unknown
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iQEVAwUBRiPYUncLPEOTuEwVAQJfoQf+MjcDbQ49PN1B561pJb8dL53CY2ry
qGL4
KJFxpD1ZcMN5LcyVTgWHoWDN32r/TI97pUFGIxRpgpXoSdN4r6UjN6GCQm2B
IGT+
Kh4KzICh9LtnGXWxOks/PckhA9v/q1N4GfrtXz33V+YM+kYq9ERo8EfBsOrT
cQhO
m4ng7vHOgsrX4gq/YHseBE5QCthG6eem7P4eWaKqDWzld5JLZRYS8GtX9m7W
QYue
rIQ3uG4uKIIIuPo69/mP3Jn0UZg7pJjadNFhSjwF1bbwdC/Os1MePDWTgTX6
EUn3
d70b4Kpr9gEchM+ItxV9veH25LnDWGhdHb6UO1Sr+xQGO6Ety9Zuxg==
=EQP7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----