Re: gnome-doc-utils, automake 1.9, and -Wno-portability
Shaun McCance schrieb: Ever since automake 1.9, automake has been spewing garbage like this when you try to build any module that uses gnome-doc-utils: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=507336 Does anyone know what a fix would be? What are the rules for POSIX variable name? Most hits I get when searching for that error tell that its becausem fo e.g. $(shell ...), but this isn't a variable name. Is the warning maybe crap and it should be filed as a bug to automake? Discussions on IRC indicate that we pretty much require GNU make all over the place in Gnome, including for intltool. I have had numerous bugs filed and fixed against gnome-doc-utils for non-GNU systems (mostly by the venerable Joe Marcus Clarke). I can only assume that, at this point, I'm not causing any *real* problems for non-GNU systems; otherwise, I'd be seeing real bugs. It seems to me that, if we just require GNU make, we ought to just pass -Wno-portability to automake. There's a bug and patch from Philip Van Hoof to do this: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=529120 On the other hand, we e.g. use pattern rules where a standart substitution rule would be enough, so some of the things are easily fixable. Stefan Christian Persch says he's in favor, but thinks it ought to be discussion on desktop-devel-list. So folks, let's discuss. -- Shaun ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: gnome-doc-utils, automake 1.9, and -Wno-portability
Le dimanche 15 février 2009, à 16:21 -0600, Shaun McCance a écrit : It seems to me that, if we just require GNU make, we ought to just pass -Wno-portability to automake. Makes sense to me. Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: gnome-doc-utils, automake 1.9, and -Wno-portability
On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 11:27 +0200, Stefan Kost wrote: Shaun McCance schrieb: Ever since automake 1.9, automake has been spewing garbage like this when you try to build any module that uses gnome-doc-utils: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=507336 Does anyone know what a fix would be? What are the rules for POSIX variable name? Most hits I get when searching for that error tell that its becausem fo e.g. $(shell ...), but this isn't a variable name. Is the warning maybe crap and it should be filed as a bug to automake? Basically, these variables are in fact function calls. These make functions are GNU extensions. Options: 1) Completely rewrite gnome-doc-utils.make to not use these functions. Comment #3 shows a glimpse of what that would involve. But it only covers some of the easier cases. I don't have a lot of confidence I could get it completely working. And, of course, that is a *huge* change that would need lots of testing. 2) Rodney indicated on IRC that this problem doesn't happen for intltool, because it includes its bits using AC_SUBST. He seems to think that if we used AC_SUBST_FILE instead of doing an include, the warnings would disappear. This looks like a loophole to me, and I wouldn't be surprised if the automake developers closed it off in a future version. Note that, with this option, gnome-doc-utils will still not work with non-GNU makes. You just won't see warnings telling you so. 3) Decide that we don't support non-GNU make, which we already don't. -- Shaun ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: gnome-doc-utils, automake 1.9, and -Wno-portability
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 11:01:04AM -0600, Shaun McCance wrote: On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 11:27 +0200, Stefan Kost wrote: Shaun McCance schrieb: Ever since automake 1.9, automake has been spewing garbage like this when you try to build any module that uses gnome-doc-utils: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=507336 Does anyone know what a fix would be? What are the rules for POSIX variable name? Most hits I get when searching for that error tell that its becausem fo e.g. $(shell ...), but this isn't a variable name. Is the warning maybe crap and it should be filed as a bug to automake? Basically, these variables are in fact function calls. These make functions are GNU extensions. Options: 1) Completely rewrite gnome-doc-utils.make to not use these functions. Comment #3 shows a glimpse of what that would involve. But it only covers some of the easier cases. I don't have a lot of confidence I could get it completely working. And, of course, that is a *huge* change that would need lots of testing. Indeed, some $(FUNCTION are quite harder to clean up strictly using shell in the makefile. 2) Rodney indicated on IRC that this problem doesn't happen for intltool, because it includes its bits using AC_SUBST. He seems to think that if we used AC_SUBST_FILE instead of doing an include, the warnings would disappear. This looks like a loophole to me, and I wouldn't be surprised if the automake developers closed it off in a future version. Note that, with this option, gnome-doc-utils will still not work with non-GNU makes. You just won't see warnings telling you so. Along the same lines (though cleaner, or maybe the same, given that I don't understand intltool) would be to do in the configure script whatever logic the $(FUNCTION are doing, and then AC_SUBST the results. However, if... 3) Decide that we don't support non-GNU make, which we already don't. that's true, then all we need to do is shut up the warning *somehow*. Don't need to fix problems that only affect a program that isn't allowable anyway. If that's true, would be good to get an autoconf bit to test for it though: checking for GNU make... no Error: gnome-doc-utils requires 'make' that supports GNU Makefile extensions. to avoid later hard-to-diagnose problems during 'make' if there aren't warnings about makefile portability issued. Is there a way to hide only the makefile portability warnings (rather than *all* portability warnings)? dan -- Daniel Macks dma...@netspace.org http://www.netspace.org/~dmacks ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
gnome-doc-utils, automake 1.9, and -Wno-portability
Ever since automake 1.9, automake has been spewing garbage like this when you try to build any module that uses gnome-doc-utils: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=507336 Discussions on IRC indicate that we pretty much require GNU make all over the place in Gnome, including for intltool. I have had numerous bugs filed and fixed against gnome-doc-utils for non-GNU systems (mostly by the venerable Joe Marcus Clarke). I can only assume that, at this point, I'm not causing any *real* problems for non-GNU systems; otherwise, I'd be seeing real bugs. It seems to me that, if we just require GNU make, we ought to just pass -Wno-portability to automake. There's a bug and patch from Philip Van Hoof to do this: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=529120 Christian Persch says he's in favor, but thinks it ought to be discussion on desktop-devel-list. So folks, let's discuss. -- Shaun ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
