On 05/22/2013 11:43 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
my point for keeping the automatic search behavior is so that people don't
have to pour through --help output and set yet-more esoteric variables so
things just work. you're of course right that by having two variables
results in dirt simple
On Thursday 23 May 2013 10:31:26 Eric Blake wrote:
On 05/22/2013 11:43 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
my point for keeping the automatic search behavior is so that people
don't have to pour through --help output and set yet-more esoteric
variables so things just work. you're of course right
It's what I've done for years. Does it get rid of the problem? I don't
think so but for legacy code that is no longer being maintained, either
you maintain it, or the problem exists into infinity with a hard stop
when someone does maintain it. I think the battle is trying to overcome
On Tuesday 21 May 2013 09:57:32 Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Tuesday 2013-05-21 07:33, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
Works for me. But we [distros] do want to mandate autoreconf anyway in
the general case: it is the *only* way to keep upstream honest about
the much hated build system not bitrotting
On Monday 20 May 2013 10:37:00 Eric Blake wrote:
On 05/18/2013 05:45 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
On Fri, 2013-05-17 at 16:05 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
Yes. It would have been really useful if autofoo used whatever is in
/usr/share/misc, unless there is a config.sub.override or
On Saturday 18 May 2013 07:45:54 Paul Wise wrote:
On Fri, 2013-05-17 at 16:05 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
Yes. It would have been really useful if autofoo used whatever is in
/usr/share/misc, unless there is a config.sub.override or
config.guess.override file in the source
On 05/22/2013 10:22 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
I would MUCH rather see us honor a CONFIG_GUESS and CONFIG_SUB
environment variable, rather than baking in a PATH search. This topic
has come up in the past, where I made the same request back then.
this might be sufficient for distro packagers
On Wednesday 22 May 2013 12:27:38 Eric Blake wrote:
On 05/22/2013 10:22 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
I would MUCH rather see us honor a CONFIG_GUESS and CONFIG_SUB
environment variable, rather than baking in a PATH search. This topic
has come up in the past, where I made the same request back
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 02:54:20PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
There are thousands of copies of config.guess/sub (or configure
scripts) out there (in tarballs) with no support for this at
all. Once it is added to config.guess/sub in git (or autoconf) then
it will take many years before the
When it comes to people building distro packages, here is another idea
thinking out loud. What's wrong with ..
$ find /tree/of/src/trees -name config.guess -exec ln -sf /etc/config.guess {}
\;
This puts the latest version into the tree, no patching required.
Ben
signature.asc
Description:
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 2:34 AM, Ben Elliston wrote:
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 02:54:20PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
There are thousands of copies of config.guess/sub (or configure
scripts) out there (in tarballs) with no support for this at
all. Once it is added to config.guess/sub in git (or
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:09 AM, Ben Elliston wrote:
When it comes to people building distro packages, here is another idea
thinking out loud. What's wrong with ..
$ find /tree/of/src/trees -name config.guess -exec ln -sf /etc/config.guess
{} \;
People forgetting about the symlink during
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 07:56:47AM -0400, Earnie Boyd wrote:
if [[ -f /usr/local/share/config/config.guess ]]
then
. /usr/local/share/config/config.guess
exit
fi
First, this does not solve the problem because it requires that every
package get a new version of config.guess. We're
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 07:33:49AM -0400, Earnie Boyd wrote:
People forgetting about the symlink during distribution of their
package. Not all systems support it. Using cp -f would be better.
OK, fine. :-)
I think there are a few different use cases people have in mind. My
understanding of
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:36 AM, Ben Elliston wrote:
Yes, but that requires re-running autoconf. I think we're trying to
avoid that because if configure.in is old, you may have a lot of work
to do to get autoreconf to work.
So in that case, a change to the start of config.guess and
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:59 AM, Ben Elliston wrote:
First, this does not solve the problem because it requires that every
package get a new version of config.guess. We're trying to overcome
having to modify every package.
So that's your objection to the symlink/copy idea as well?
Second,
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 08:21:09AM -0400, Earnie Boyd wrote:
First, this does not solve the problem because it requires that every
package get a new version of config.guess. We're trying to overcome
having to modify every package.
So that's your objection to the symlink/copy idea as
On 05/21/2013 04:59 AM, Earnie Boyd wrote:
Maybe have a common directory of /usr/[local/]share/autoconf/auxdir
and teach autoconf to look there if it doesn't find
config.guess/config.sub in the project directory and copy them when
copy is specified? I dislike the environment variable idea.
On 05/21/2013 05:56 AM, Earnie Boyd wrote:
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:36 AM, Ben Elliston wrote:
Yes, but that requires re-running autoconf. I think we're trying to
avoid that because if configure.in is old, you may have a lot of work
to do to get autoreconf to work.
So in that case, a
On Tuesday 2013-05-21 07:33, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
Works for me. But we [distros] do want to mandate autoreconf anyway in the
general case: it is the *only* way to keep upstream honest about the much
hated build system not bitrotting until it decides to blow up right when we
need it for a
Works for me. But we [distros] do want to mandate autoreconf anyway in the
general case: it is the *only* way to keep upstream honest about the much
hated build system not bitrotting until it decides to blow up right when we
need it for a security update.
I know. But there is a lot of
I suggested a simple, low impact way of updating the files,
particularly for people wanting to build a large number of packages
(eg, for a distro). Can anyone tell me why this approach is not
satisfactory?
Ben
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Ben Elliston wrote:
I suggested a simple, low impact way of updating the files,
particularly for people wanting to build a large number of packages
(eg, for a distro). Can anyone tell me why this approach is not
satisfactory?
It's what I've done for years.
On Thursday 16 May 2013 15:28:39 Warren Young wrote:
On 5/15/2013 14:27, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday 15 May 2013 15:25:31 Warren Young wrote:
we've got pretty good coverage for anything passably relevant (and then
some).
So, because Gentoo has N text editors in the repo, the N+1th
On Mon, 2013-05-20 at 07:40 +0200, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
Yes, it was mentioned multiple times in this thread already and it was
always forgotten. Please consider this approach.
The patches I've posted include environment variables too.
One thing was not mentioned here - if there was a
pros: we are able to easily patch also old packages (no-need to
autoreconfigure)
There would still be a long bootstrap period where old tarballs would
not have any way of running a modern config.sub/guess other than copying
them in from the system versions.
I meant that you are able to
On Mon, 2013-05-20 at 08:43 +0200, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
I meant that you are able to patch the very small part of
config.guess/config.sub with checking for environmental variables and
thats all - you don't have to touch this package in future. The patched
config.sub is able to call system's
On 05/18/2013 05:45 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
On Fri, 2013-05-17 at 16:05 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
Yes. It would have been really useful if autofoo used whatever is in
/usr/share/misc, unless there is a config.sub.override or
config.guess.override file in the source directory
On Mon, 2013-05-20 at 08:37 -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
I would MUCH rather see us honor a CONFIG_GUESS and CONFIG_SUB
environment variable, rather than baking in a PATH search. This topic
has come up in the past, where I made the same request back then.
The patch does both and both are needed
On 05/20/2013 09:01 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
On Mon, 2013-05-20 at 08:37 -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
I would MUCH rather see us honor a CONFIG_GUESS and CONFIG_SUB
environment variable, rather than baking in a PATH search. This topic
has come up in the past, where I made the same request back
On Mon, 2013-05-20 at 09:11 -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
On 05/20/2013 09:01 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
On Mon, 2013-05-20 at 08:37 -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
I would MUCH rather see us honor a CONFIG_GUESS and CONFIG_SUB
environment variable, rather than baking in a PATH search. This topic
has
+++ Eric Blake [2013-05-20 09:11 -0600]:
On 05/20/2013 09:01 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
On Mon, 2013-05-20 at 08:37 -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
I would MUCH rather see us honor a CONFIG_GUESS and CONFIG_SUB
environment variable, rather than baking in a PATH search. This topic
has come up in
On 05/20/2013 09:37 AM, Wookey wrote:
+++ Eric Blake [2013-05-20 09:11 -0600]:
On 05/20/2013 09:01 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
On Mon, 2013-05-20 at 08:37 -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
I would MUCH rather see us honor a CONFIG_GUESS and CONFIG_SUB
environment variable, rather than baking in a PATH
On Mon, 20 May 2013, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
+cc config-patc...@gnu.org, Ben Elliston b...@air.net.au
IME, it is much better when any override mechanism make use of
environment variables.
Yes, it was mentioned multiple times in this thread already and it was
always forgotten. Please
Works for me. But we [distros] do want to mandate autoreconf anyway in the
general case: it is the *only* way to keep upstream honest about the much
hated build system not bitrotting until it decides to blow up right when we
need it for a security update.
I know. But there is a lot of
+cc config-patc...@gnu.org, Ben Elliston b...@air.net.au
IME, it is much better when any override mechanism make use of
environment variables.
Yes, it was mentioned multiple times in this thread already and it was
always forgotten. Please consider this approach.
One thing was not mentioned
On Fri, 2013-05-17 at 16:05 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
Yes. It would have been really useful if autofoo used whatever is in
/usr/share/misc, unless there is a config.sub.override or
config.guess.override file in the source directory (or even better,
something pointed to by
On Sat, 18 May 2013, Paul Wise wrote:
On Fri, 2013-05-17 at 16:05 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
Yes. It would have been really useful if autofoo used whatever is in
/usr/share/misc, unless there is a config.sub.override or
config.guess.override file in the source directory (or
On Thu, 16 May 2013, Paul Wise wrote:
On Wed, 2013-05-15 at 16:30 +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2013 23:53:44 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
yes, Gentoo fixed this for every package in our tree like 9 years ago
FWIW, we do the same thing in Buildroot
Yes, it is a very
On 5/17/2013 13:05, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
It would have been really useful if autofoo used whatever is in
/usr/share/misc, unless there is a config.sub.override or
config.guess.override file
You're starting from an assumption that autotools are installed on all
systems where you
On 5/15/2013 14:27, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday 15 May 2013 15:25:31 Warren Young wrote:
we've got pretty good coverage for anything passably relevant (and then some).
So, because Gentoo has N text editors in the repo, the N+1th text editor
must port to Gentoo without problems?
On 05/15/2013 05:53 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday 08 October 2012 08:46:57 Paul Wise wrote:
So, Debian is in the process of bringing up our upcoming arm64 port.
Unfortunately we are also coming across lots of packages with rather
outdated config.guess and config.sub files (see links
Hello,
On Tue, 14 May 2013 23:53:44 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
yes, Gentoo fixed this for every package in our tree like 9 years ago
(we added a common function like 11 years ago that ebuilds could call
manually, but we found that didn't scale). when you run a standard
autoconf script, we
On Wednesday 15 May 2013 09:54:08 Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 05/15/2013 05:53 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday 08 October 2012 08:46:57 Paul Wise wrote:
So, Debian is in the process of bringing up our upcoming arm64 port.
Unfortunately we are also coming across lots of packages with rather
On 05/15/2013 06:13 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday 15 May 2013 09:54:08 Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 05/15/2013 05:53 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday 08 October 2012 08:46:57 Paul Wise wrote:
So, Debian is in the process of bringing up our upcoming arm64 port.
Unfortunately we are
On Wednesday 15 May 2013 12:26:46 Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 05/15/2013 06:13 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday 15 May 2013 09:54:08 Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 05/15/2013 05:53 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday 08 October 2012 08:46:57 Paul Wise wrote:
So, Debian is in the process of
Thomas Petazzoni thomas.petazz...@free-electrons.com writes:
On Tue, 14 May 2013 23:53:44 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
yes, Gentoo fixed this for every package in our tree like 9 years ago
(we added a common function like 11 years ago that ebuilds could call
manually, but we found that didn't
On 5/15/2013 11:20, Mike Frysinger wrote:
i understand the point you're making. however, ~10 years of building from
source in Gentoo and doing this for every single build has shown that in
practice, it's irrelevant.
It's irrelevant *for* *Gentoo*. Not all autoconfiscated source trees
are
On Wednesday 15 May 2013 15:25:31 Warren Young wrote:
On 5/15/2013 11:20, Mike Frysinger wrote:
i understand the point you're making. however, ~10 years of building
from source in Gentoo and doing this for every single build has shown
that in practice, it's irrelevant.
It's irrelevant
Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org writes:
if Gentoo blowing away your rinky dinky config.sub hack breaks your
project, then take it as a sign that You're Doing It Wrong :).
I think this may be one of those historical momentum things. As INN
maintainer, I used to carry local patches to
+++ Thomas Petazzoni [2013-05-15 16:30 +0200]:
Hello,
On Tue, 14 May 2013 23:53:44 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
yes, Gentoo fixed this for every package in our tree like 9 years ago
(we added a common function like 11 years ago that ebuilds could call
manually, but we found that didn't
On Wed, 2013-05-15 at 16:30 +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2013 23:53:44 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
yes, Gentoo fixed this for every package in our tree like 9 years ago
FWIW, we do the same thing in Buildroot
Yes, it is a very common hack in all of the distros.
It would be
On Monday 08 October 2012 08:46:57 Paul Wise wrote:
So, Debian is in the process of bringing up our upcoming arm64 port.
Unfortunately we are also coming across lots of packages with rather
outdated config.guess and config.sub files (see links below). We could
patch every single package that
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 09:27:46AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
On Mon, 2012-10-08 at 12:26 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Personally, I've already started converting every package I maintain that
uses Autoconf to using dh_autoreconf during the build.
Likewise.
I wonder if that isn't a better
Adrian Bunk b...@stusta.de writes:
One problem is that in new upstream versions of
autoconf/automake/libtool there are sometimes slight incompatibilities,
and you end up with shipping many different versions of each of these
tools (even today Debian already ships 5 different versions of
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 10:17:44AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Adrian Bunk b...@stusta.de writes:
One problem is that in new upstream versions of
autoconf/automake/libtool there are sometimes slight incompatibilities,
and you end up with shipping many different versions of each of these
Does simple replacement of config.guess and config.sub constitute a
useful port to this previously unencountered target? Is there
really any viable substitute for re-autotooling the packages, while
modifying configure.ac, Makefiles, and source code as found to be
required?
Bob
--
Bob
On 10/08/2012 06:46 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
Hi all,
So, Debian is in the process of bringing up our upcoming arm64 port.
Unfortunately we are also coming across lots of packages with rather
outdated config.guess and config.sub files (see links below). We could
patch every single package that
On Mon, 2012-10-08 at 10:22 -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
Not to discourage you, but I still see a fundamental problem, where
things will just not scale for several more years (if ever). Your
proposed patch will have no effect on packages that were shipped with a
configure script generated by
On Mon, 2012-10-08 at 11:07 -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
Does simple replacement of config.guess and config.sub constitute a
useful port to this previously unencountered target?
Yes. The problem is that we have to repeat this process for every
package every time we want to bootstrap a new
On Tue, 9 Oct 2012, Paul Wise wrote:
On Mon, 2012-10-08 at 11:07 -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
Does simple replacement of config.guess and config.sub constitute a
useful port to this previously unencountered target?
Yes. The problem is that we have to repeat this process for every
package
Paul Wise pa...@bonedaddy.net writes:
In the meantime, within Debian we will be pursuing both per-package
updating of config.guess/sub and I'm also thinking about getting our
binary package build toolchain to take that role, but I'm not sure how
well that would be received within Debian or
Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us writes:
Does simple replacement of config.guess and config.sub constitute a
useful port to this previously unencountered target?
Believe it or not, yes, frequently it does.
Note that this is specifically in the context of Debian, which means that
On Tue, 9 Oct 2012, Paul Wise wrote:
On Mon, 2012-10-08 at 11:07 -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
Does simple replacement of config.guess and config.sub constitute a
useful port to this previously unencountered target?
Yes. The problem is that we have to repeat this process for every
package
On Mon, 8 Oct 2012, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
CONFIG_SITE and CONFIG_SHELL)? For example, there could be CONFIG_SITE and
CONFIG_SUB environment variables. This approach would allow the package
I meant CONFIG_GUESS and CONFIG_SUB of course. :-)
Bob
--
Bob Friesenhahn
On Mon, 08 Oct 2012, Russ Allbery wrote:
Personally, I've already started converting every package I maintain that
uses Autoconf to using dh_autoreconf during the build. I wonder if that
isn't a better long-term solution for Debian. config.guess/config.sub
have caused the most frequent
On Mon, 2012-10-08 at 12:26 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Personally, I've already started converting every package I maintain that
uses Autoconf to using dh_autoreconf during the build.
Likewise.
I wonder if that isn't a better long-term solution for Debian.
It is, but for DFSG item 2 reasons
On Mon, 2012-10-08 at 18:40 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
Well, as far as I am concerned, we should axe from the [next] Debian stable
distro anything that doesn't retool completely before the build, IMO just
updating config.sub/guess is not nearly enough.
I think thats going a bit
On Mon, 2012-10-08 at 13:52 -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
While replacing config.guess/sub gets over the first hurdle, there are
surely additional hurdles to be encountered which might render getting
past the first hurdle to be moot.
Agreed, the key here is to not give up before starting.
+++ Russ Allbery [2012-10-08 12:32 -0700]:
Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us writes:
Does simple replacement of config.guess and config.sub constitute a
useful port to this previously unencountered target?
Believe it or not, yes, frequently it does.
Note that this is
70 matches
Mail list logo
