Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] GR 3.5.1 release tarball bugs

[Douglas Geiger]

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Josh Blum <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>
> On 01/12/2012 10:53 AM, Ed Criscuolo wrote:
>> On 1/11/12 4:59 PM, Josh Blum wrote:
>>> I dont think this is a tarball of the source tree. Rather, its a tarball
>>> produced by autotools with only files listed by makefile.ams or
>>> generated in autotools.
>>
>> But what of the future? If autotools goes away in favor of cmake, does
>> this mean that tarballs will go away too?  I hope not, as a tarball is
>> the preferred way of installation on a number of the machines that I use
>> because they are in isolated labs and are not allowed to be connected
>> to the internet.
>>
>
> One suggestion I have, is if we pushed all of the tags onto github,
> github will happily give your source tarballs for any particular branch,
> or tag, or revision. Example:
>
> wget https://github.com/gnuradio/gnuradio/tarball/master
> wget https://github.com/gnuradio/gnuradio/tarball/<some tag name>
>

I will pipe in here with how I handle my interweb-disconnected
machines: I have the git repo cloned onto a flash drive, and
clone/pull from that on the disconnected machine(s) when needed: a
nice feature of a DVCS. This does assume that moving flash drives
between machines is allowed.

 However, since I imagine there are plenty of people who don't really
want to go through the additional step of dealing with git (if they're
used to building from tarballs), I believe cmake has the ability to
create them using the make package_source command, but I admit I've
never tried this with GNURadio, and have no idea how well it
does/doesn't work. Note that cmake-produced tarballs do require cmake
to exist on the machine doing the build (whereas autotools generated
tarballs only assume the Bourne shell+required compilers/etc. are
available).

-- 
Doug Geiger
address@hidden