From: Tomi Ollila <tomi.ollila@iki.fi>
To: David Bremner <david@tethera.net>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Subject: [PATCH] make release: remove LATEST-$(PACKAGE)-*
In-Reply-To: <87y5utsdys.fsf@rocinante.cs.unb.ca>
References: <yf6ty5ttfs2.fsf@taco2.nixu.fi>
	<87y5utsdys.fsf@rocinante.cs.unb.ca>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.10+55~gde3d46e (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1
	(i686-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 13:39:32 +0200
Message-ID: <yf6born5jt7.fsf@taco2.nixu.fi>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Precedence: list

The tar file of particular package (notmuch in this case) is named
as $(PACKAGE)-$(VERSION).tar.gz. Therefore the best way to remove
previous link to LATEST is to remove all files beginning with
LATEST-$(PACKAGE)- and not relying how $(VERSION) string is constructed.
---

Applies on top of id:"yf6ty5ttfs2.fsf@taco2.nixu.fi"

More discussion at the end of this email.

 Makefile.local |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Makefile.local b/Makefile.local
index b4faada..d699463 100644
--- a/Makefile.local
+++ b/Makefile.local
@@ -122,7 +122,7 @@ release: verify-source-tree-and-version
 ifeq ($(REALLY_UPLOAD),yes)
 	git push origin $(VERSION)
 	cd releases && scp $(TAR_FILE) $(SHA1_FILE) $(GPG_FILE) $(RELEASE_HOST):$(RELEASE_DIR)
-	ssh $(RELEASE_HOST) "rm -f $(RELEASE_DIR)/LATEST-$(PACKAGE)-[0-9]* ; ln -s $(TAR_FILE) $(RELEASE_DIR)/LATEST-$(TAR_FILE)"
+	ssh $(RELEASE_HOST) "rm -f $(RELEASE_DIR)/LATEST-$(PACKAGE)-* ; ln -s $(TAR_FILE) $(RELEASE_DIR)/LATEST-$(TAR_FILE)"
 endif
 	@echo "Please send a release announcement using $(PACKAGE)-$(VERSION).announce as a template."
 
-- 
1.7.7.3

Subject: Re: [PATCH] have LATEST-notmuch-<version>.tar.gz on releases web page

On Sat, 03 Dec 2011 10:32:43 -0800, David Bremner <david@tethera.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 22:41:01 +0200, Tomi Ollila <tomi.ollila@nixu.com> wrote:
> > The notmuchmail/releases page used to have LATEST-notmuch-<version>
> > to link to the latest notmuch source tarball. This is confusing on
> > web page and on disk when the file has been downloaded. This change
> > looks a bit inconsistent with the 'rm' command just executed before.
> > $(TAR_FILE) is defined (currently) as $(PACKAGE)-$(VERSION).tar.gz;
> > as long as the prefix stays $(PACKAGE)-$(VERSION) and version begins
> > with a digit then this line is good in execution point of view.
> 
> On IRC we talked about changing the rm command in this since I
> bootstrapped the process by hand. Did you come to a conclusion one way
> or the other?

Yes. IMO Instead of rm -f $(RELEASE_DIR)/LATEST-$(PACKAGE)-[0-9]*
this should just be rm -f $(RELEASE_DIR)/LATEST-$(PACKAGE)-*

This change and the patch in question are independent of each other
as the former would fail to remove the LATEST- -file if $(VERSION)
started without number in any case.

I don't see anything else that could be used to make rm more consistent
in case the -$(PACKAGE)-$(VERSION) is changed to -$(TAR_FILE) -- still, it
would be silly to use -$(PACKAGE)-$(VERSION).tar.gz there; also this definition

TAR_FILE=$(PACKAGE)-$(VERSION).tar.gz  

in Makefile.local looks pretty robust.

> d

Tomi