Re: automake, autoconf compiling
On 2005-01-13 20:13, Tom Huppi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: >> I use autoconf/automake and libtool daily at work[1]. >> >> The programs I write have to run on at least 3 different operating >> systems (FreeBSD, Linux and Solaris) without the need for constant >> manual tweaking of the source. > > At work (former), I was responsible for code which was to *compile* on > 6 or 7 different platforms. I choose one (often my FreeBSD > workstation) upon which to execute the auto-tools and didn't bother > with most of the others though I kept a compatible set of these tools > on Linux and Solaris for convenience. Very well said. I'd only like to note that the important thing to note here is: 'a compatible set of these tools' > Indeed, the whole paradigm behind these tools is that they should > _not_ be needed on the target platform. 'autoconf' goes to great > pains to generate platform independent Bourne shell configure script > for a very good reason! The compatibility problems are usually encountered long before the program reaches 'the target platform'. The generated Bourne shell scripts are indeed very platform independent. The autoconf/automake stuff used to write them is not though. > Unfortunately too many people either misunderstand the paradigm and/or > or mis-use the tools and I suspect that this is a good portion of the > reason why the FreeBSD ports infrastructure needs to play so many > silly games with the auto-tools. No, the reason the Ports go through all the hoops you see is that they are meant to be used by people who don't care or don't need to know the internals of the autotools. They just need a version that 'works good enough for installing port foo/bar-1.2.3'. One other reason is, of course, the fact that the autotools have changed and are constantly changing the 'canonical' way of writing their input files. This is both a good and bad thing, depending on the viewpoint. It is a good thing, because it shows that they are alive, actively maintained projects. It is a bad thing, because every time a developer tries to regenerate the `configure' scripts and all associated files with a mismatched autotools version, they are forced to either: a) install the exact same versions the original configure.ac scripts have been written for, or b) abandon the idea of using autotools altogether. I usually go for (a), if I have a choise. The ports people do not have that choise, because they need to support programs coming from various sources, with the minimal amount of changes to the original program source. - Giorgos ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: automake, autoconf compiling
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > I use autoconf/automake and libtool daily at work[1]. > > The programs I write have to run on at least 3 different operating > systems (FreeBSD, Linux and Solaris) without the need for constant > manual tweaking of the source. At work (former), I was responsible for code which was to *compile* on 6 or 7 different platforms. I choose one (often my FreeBSD workstation) upon which to execute the auto-tools and didn't bother with most of the others though I kept a compatible set of these tools on Linux and Solaris for convenience. Indeed, the whole paradigm behind these tools is that they should _not_ be needed on the target platform. 'autoconf' goes to great pains to generate platform independent Bourne shell configure script for a very good reason! Unfortunately too many people either misunderstand the paradigm and/or or mis-use the tools and I suspect that this is a good portion of the reason why the FreeBSD ports infrastructure needs to play so many silly games with the auto-tools. Properly speaking, the target platform shouldn't need them at all, but I'm sure there are details of certain source distributions which I am not aware of. Thanks, - Tom > The best way to do that is to use the same version of autotools on all > those platforms. So, I install the latest possible versions of these > tools with --prefix=/opt/autotools on all the machines I have to use, > and stop worrying about all the details. > > When I have to use the tools, I add /opt/autotools/bin at the beginning > of my PATH. When I don't need them, I remove /opt/autotools/bin from my > path. > > This has worked wonders so far. > > - Giorgos > > > > [1] The operative keyword here is "at work". I don't use autoconf and > friends for programs I write on my own. I prefer bsd.*.mk for that. > ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: automake, autoconf compiling
All of the information both of your provided is helpful. I will have to investigate further. Some of the information that Tom specified helped me to track down the problem. Basically I have multiple versions of the tools installed and there are two different directories with aclocal m4 files. If I explicitly change the shell script to also include the other directory then everything seems to continue on until compile time when there is a header that cannot be found. It appears this header alloca.h is located in /usr/src/gnu/usr.bin/sort/alloca.h. I was just wondering if Giorgos method would also alleviate these problems or if this is just par for the course when using projects that people have not moved into the ports collection? Keith -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Giorgos Keramidas Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 3:48 PM To: Tom Huppi Cc: Keith Bottner; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Org Subject: Re: automake, autoconf compiling PLEASE DON'T TOP-POST. THANK YOU :-) On 2005-01-13 16:24, Tom Huppi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Keith Bottner wrote: >> I am trying to get a development system setup and am having trouble >> identifying how FreeBSD handles automake, autoconf and the like. >> [...] I did chase them down in the /usr/local/libexec/automake18 and >> similar directories but placing them in the path still generates >> errors (i.e. there continues to be things that are missing at various >> stages). >> >> I guess my general question is: What is the standard way for setting >> up FreeBSD to use these (GNU tools) with the least trouble across >> disparate projects? > > I've recently been struggling with similar issues, and would be > interested to know what others might have found effective. I use autoconf/automake and libtool daily at work[1]. The programs I write have to run on at least 3 different operating systems (FreeBSD, Linux and Solaris) without the need for constant manual tweaking of the source. The best way to do that is to use the same version of autotools on all those platforms. So, I install the latest possible versions of these tools with --prefix=/opt/autotools on all the machines I have to use, and stop worrying about all the details. When I have to use the tools, I add /opt/autotools/bin at the beginning of my PATH. When I don't need them, I remove /opt/autotools/bin from my path. This has worked wonders so far. - Giorgos [1] The operative keyword here is "at work". I don't use autoconf and friends for programs I write on my own. I prefer bsd.*.mk for that. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-newbies To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.11 - Release Date: 1/12/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.11 - Release Date: 1/12/2005 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: automake, autoconf compiling
PLEASE DON'T TOP-POST. THANK YOU :-) On 2005-01-13 16:24, Tom Huppi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Keith Bottner wrote: >> I am trying to get a development system setup and am having trouble >> identifying how FreeBSD handles automake, autoconf and the like. >> [...] I did chase them down in the /usr/local/libexec/automake18 and >> similar directories but placing them in the path still generates >> errors (i.e. there continues to be things that are missing at various >> stages). >> >> I guess my general question is: What is the standard way for setting >> up FreeBSD to use these (GNU tools) with the least trouble across >> disparate projects? > > I've recently been struggling with similar issues, and would be > interested to know what others might have found effective. I use autoconf/automake and libtool daily at work[1]. The programs I write have to run on at least 3 different operating systems (FreeBSD, Linux and Solaris) without the need for constant manual tweaking of the source. The best way to do that is to use the same version of autotools on all those platforms. So, I install the latest possible versions of these tools with --prefix=/opt/autotools on all the machines I have to use, and stop worrying about all the details. When I have to use the tools, I add /opt/autotools/bin at the beginning of my PATH. When I don't need them, I remove /opt/autotools/bin from my path. This has worked wonders so far. - Giorgos [1] The operative keyword here is "at work". I don't use autoconf and friends for programs I write on my own. I prefer bsd.*.mk for that. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: automake, autoconf compiling
Hi Keith, I've recently been struggling with similar issues, and would be interested to know what others might have found effective. I have a number of different versions of the auto-tools on my machine, almost certainly as a result of installing various ports. It is worth note that one can glean some info on how the FreeBSD ports infrastructure handles this problem by looking at /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.autotools.mk. For my part, I found the details to be too 'ugly' to attempt to emulate in my work, but they are interesting all-the-same. To date I have not resorted to installing any custom, system-wide builds of any of these tools for fear of harming my ability to use the ports infrastructure and out of a desire to reduce future maintenance considerations. For the most part, I have reasonable luck simply calling the desired tool by it's installed name. (i.e., 'autoconf259' instead of 'autoconf'.) Most of these tools know where to obtain their helper files due to the PREFIX they were assigned when they themselves were 'built'. I have run into situations where aclocal got confused by multiple macro definitions (for some libtool macros in my case.) That was a bit hard to debug, and it may be rare as my research didn't turn up too many references. I think it pertinent to expand this question to freebsd-questions to include a wider audience. Certainly these are FreeBSD specific considerations, and probably not extremely arcane ones. Thanks, - Tom On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Keith Bottner wrote: > First let me say that I am definitely a newbie to FreeBSD but not to Linux > or Windows. > > I am trying to get a development system setup and am having trouble > identifying how FreeBSD handles automake, autoconf and the like. > Specifically I am trying to get the Apache log4cxx source to compile and of > course I am running into problems with automake, aclocal, autoheader, > autoconf and libtoolize not being in the path. I did chase them down in the > /usr/local/libexec/automake18 and similar directories but placing them in > the path still generates errors (i.e. there continues to be things that are > missing at various stages). > > I guess my general question is: What is the standard way for setting up > FreeBSD to use these (GNU tools) with the least trouble across disparate > projects? > > I have never had this problem on Linux as they have always been properly > setup on install and I want to get FreeBSD going and do it the way that is > accepted as the standard so that later generalizing my project with autoconf > will be standardized as well. > > I appreciate any feedback and realize this is a rather broad question, but > hey I said I was new to FreeBSD. > > Keith > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.11 - Release Date: 1/12/2005 > > ___ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-newbies > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
