GNU bug report logs - #46564
[PATCH core-updates]: Use autoconf-wrapper instead of autoconf

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 46564 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 46564 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Maxime Devos <maximedevos <at> telenet.be>
To: guix-patches <at> gnu.org
Subject: [PATCH core-updates]: Use autoconf-wrapper instead of autoconf
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 19:10:17 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi Guix,

This patch replaces autoconf with autoconf-wrapped in the native-inputs
almost everywhere (except for some packages in
gnu/packages/autotools.scm).  As this would cause many rebuilds, this
patch targets the "core-updates" branch and not "master".

A wine package has autoconf in the inputs instead of native-inputs,
I wonder if that's intentional or a bug?  I left that package untouched
for now.

Why this change?

* consistency / reducing confusion: some packages use autoconf, some use
  autoconf-wrapper, and there's no (to me) obvious reason why two variants
  of autoconf should be used.

* <whatever pro's nckx had in mind on #guix>

* some progress towards booting without /bin/sh

  Scenario I have in mind (untested):

  1. boot a system that doesn't have /bin/sh
  2. decide to hack on guix (run git clone ...., cd $REPO)
  3. guix environment guix
  4. sh ./bootstrap (calls autoreconf -vfi)
  5. ./configure --localstatedir=/var
  6. more stuff

  Without this patch, step (5.) will fail without this patch because
  the generated ./configure script refers to /bin/sh, which doesn't
  exist.

  That said, there are some #!/bin/sh shebangs in the source code,
  so there are some problems in (6.).

Why not?

* ‘make dist’ will produce unusable tarballs
  when in an environment from ‘guix environment PACKAGE’.
  This should now be replaced with ‘guix environment PACKAGE --ad-hoc
  autoconf'.

[0001-Use-autoconf-wrapper-instead-of-autoconf.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #8 received at 46564 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: Maxime Devos <maximedevos <at> telenet.be>
Cc: 46564 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#46564: [PATCH core-updates]: Use autoconf-wrapper instead
 of autoconf
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2021 23:05:11 +0100

Hi,

Maxime Devos <maximedevos <at> telenet.be> skribis:

> This patch replaces autoconf with autoconf-wrapped in the native-inputs
> almost everywhere (except for some packages in
> gnu/packages/autotools.scm).  As this would cause many rebuilds, this
> patch targets the "core-updates" branch and not "master".

OK.

> A wine package has autoconf in the inputs instead of native-inputs,
> I wonder if that's intentional or a bug?  I left that package untouched
> for now.

I think that’s a bug.

> Why this change?
>
> * consistency / reducing confusion: some packages use autoconf, some use
>   autoconf-wrapper, and there's no (to me) obvious reason why two variants
>   of autoconf should be used.
>
> * <whatever pro's nckx had in mind on #guix>
>
> * some progress towards booting without /bin/sh
>
>   Scenario I have in mind (untested):
>
>   1. boot a system that doesn't have /bin/sh
>   2. decide to hack on guix (run git clone ...., cd $REPO)
>   3. guix environment guix
>   4. sh ./bootstrap (calls autoreconf -vfi)
>   5. ./configure --localstatedir=/var
>   6. more stuff
>
>   Without this patch, step (5.) will fail without this patch because
>   the generated ./configure script refers to /bin/sh, which doesn't
>   exist.
>
>   That said, there are some #!/bin/sh shebangs in the source code,
>   so there are some problems in (6.).

Yeah, I’m not sure this is a worthy goal.

> Why not?
>
> * ‘make dist’ will produce unusable tarballs
>   when in an environment from ‘guix environment PACKAGE’.
>   This should now be replaced with ‘guix environment PACKAGE --ad-hoc
>   autoconf'.

Yeah.  I would be in favor of unifying things the other way around:
using ‘autoconf’ instead of ‘autoconf-wrapper’ everywhere.  Since
there’s the ‘patch-shebangs’ phase, we don’t need ‘autoconf-wrapper’.

There’s one exception I think: Automake.  This one needs
‘autoconf-wrapper’ so it can actually run its test suite.  Perhaps
Libtool too.

WDYT?

Ludo’.

Message #11 received at 46564 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Maxime Devos <maximedevos <at> telenet.be>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 46564 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#46564: [PATCH core-updates]: Use autoconf-wrapper instead
 of autoconf
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 18:23:32 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi,

On Sun, 2021-02-21 at 23:05 +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> [...]
> 
> Maxime Devos <maximedevos <at> telenet.be> skribis:
> 
> > This patch replaces autoconf with autoconf-wrapped in the native-inputs
> > almost everywhere (except for some packages in
> > gnu/packages/autotools.scm).  As this would cause many rebuilds, this
> > patch targets the "core-updates" branch and not "master".
> 
> OK.

The revised patch targets master, as less packages were changed
(changing the definition of libuv should be done on core-updates).

> > A wine package has autoconf in the inputs instead of native-inputs,
> > I wonder if that's intentional or a bug?  I left that package untouched
> > for now.
> 
> I think that’s a bug.
> 
> > Why this change? [...]
> Yeah, I’m not sure this is a worthy goal.
> 
> > Why not?
> [...]
> Yeah.  I would be in favor of unifying things the other way around:
> using ‘autoconf’ instead of ‘autoconf-wrapper’ everywhere.  Since
> there’s the ‘patch-shebangs’ phase, we don’t need ‘autoconf-wrapper’.

I've attached a patch that unifies things the other way around.

> There’s one exception I think: Automake.  This one needs
> ‘autoconf-wrapper’ so it can actually run its test suite.  Perhaps
> Libtool too.

Some other packages fail to build without autoconf-wrapper as well.
Some packages run './configure' from 'autogen.sh' or from the Makefile.
I added a little explanation to each package that actually needs
autoconf-wrapper, and discouraged new uses of autoconf-wrapper with
a comment next to the definition of autoconf-wrapper.

WDYT?

Maxime.

[0001-gnu-Use-autoconf-instead-of-autoconf-wrapper-when-po.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #14 received at 46564 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: Maxime Devos <maximedevos <at> telenet.be>
Cc: 46564 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#46564: [PATCH core-updates]: Use autoconf-wrapper instead
 of autoconf
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2021 09:19:22 +0100

Hi Maxime,

Maxime Devos <maximedevos <at> telenet.be> skribis:

>> There’s one exception I think: Automake.  This one needs
>> ‘autoconf-wrapper’ so it can actually run its test suite.  Perhaps
>> Libtool too.
>
> Some other packages fail to build without autoconf-wrapper as well.
> Some packages run './configure' from 'autogen.sh' or from the Makefile.

Oh right.

> I added a little explanation to each package that actually needs
> autoconf-wrapper, and discouraged new uses of autoconf-wrapper with
> a comment next to the definition of autoconf-wrapper.

Great.

> From d42be9473bac6b8bcfe17a37c92f2481cb2198fb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Maxime Devos <maximedevos <at> telenet.be>
> Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 16:43:10 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] gnu: Use autoconf instead of autoconf-wrapper when possible.
>
> This should reduce confusion on when to use the "autoconf"
> package and when to use "autoconf-wrapper" instead in
> package definitions.
>
> Fixes: <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/46564>
>
> * gnu/packages/autotools.scm (autoconf-wrapper):
>   advise to use the "autoconf" package instead where
>   possible.
> * gnu/packages/game-development.scm (tsukundere)[native-inputs]:
>   use "autoconf" instead of "autoconf-wrapper".
> * gnu/packages/gimp.scm
>   (glimpse)[native-inputs]: likewise.
>   (gimp-resynthesizer)[native-inputs]: add comment on why
>   "autoconf-wrapper" is used.
> * gnu/packages/gnunet.scm (gnunet)[native-inputs]:
>   use "autoconf" instead of "autoconf-wrapper".
> * gnu/packages/gnupg.scm (signing-party)[native-inputs]:
>   add comment on why "autoconf-wrapper" is used.
> * gnu/packages/guile-xyz.scm
>   (guile-bash,guile-filesystem,guile-ics,guile-udev)[native-inputs]:
>   use "autoconf" instead of "autoconf-wrapper".
> * gnu/packages/libevent.scm (libuv)[native-inputs]: indicates
>   "autoconf-wrapper" needs to be replaced with "autoconf"
>   on core-updates.
> * gnu/packages/logging.scm (glog)[native-inputs]: use "autoconf"
>   instead of "autoconf-wrapper".
> * gnu/packages/mail.scm (libetpan)[native-inputs]: likewise.
> * gnu/packages/mate.scm
>   (mate-icon-theme-faenza)[native-inputs]: add comment on why
>   "autoconf-wrapper" is used.
>   (mate-screensaver)[native-inputs]: use "autoconf" instead of
>   "autoconf-wrapper".
> * gnu/packages/package-management.scm (guix)[native-inputs]: likewise.
> * gnu/packages/sawfish.scm (librep)[native-inputs]: likewise.
> * gnu/packages/video.scm (motion)[native-inputs]: likewise.
> * gnu/packages/zile.scm (zile)[native-inputs]: likewise.

At first sight it should rebuild much so LGTM!

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Message #17 received at 46564 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: Maxime Devos <maximedevos <at> telenet.be>
Cc: 46564 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#46564: [PATCH core-updates]: Use autoconf-wrapper instead
 of autoconf
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2021 09:19:48 +0100

Ah, I meant “it should _not_ rebuild much”, so OK for master.

Message #22 received at 46564-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: Maxime Devos <maximedevos <at> telenet.be>
Cc: 46564-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#46564: [PATCH core-updates]: Use autoconf-wrapper instead
 of autoconf
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 23:12:32 +0100

Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> skribis:

>> From d42be9473bac6b8bcfe17a37c92f2481cb2198fb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Maxime Devos <maximedevos <at> telenet.be>
>> Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 16:43:10 +0100
>> Subject: [PATCH] gnu: Use autoconf instead of autoconf-wrapper when possible.
>>
>> This should reduce confusion on when to use the "autoconf"
>> package and when to use "autoconf-wrapper" instead in
>> package definitions.
>>
>> Fixes: <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/46564>
>>
>> * gnu/packages/autotools.scm (autoconf-wrapper):
>>   advise to use the "autoconf" package instead where
>>   possible.
>> * gnu/packages/game-development.scm (tsukundere)[native-inputs]:
>>   use "autoconf" instead of "autoconf-wrapper".
>> * gnu/packages/gimp.scm
>>   (glimpse)[native-inputs]: likewise.
>>   (gimp-resynthesizer)[native-inputs]: add comment on why
>>   "autoconf-wrapper" is used.
>> * gnu/packages/gnunet.scm (gnunet)[native-inputs]:
>>   use "autoconf" instead of "autoconf-wrapper".
>> * gnu/packages/gnupg.scm (signing-party)[native-inputs]:
>>   add comment on why "autoconf-wrapper" is used.
>> * gnu/packages/guile-xyz.scm
>>   (guile-bash,guile-filesystem,guile-ics,guile-udev)[native-inputs]:
>>   use "autoconf" instead of "autoconf-wrapper".
>> * gnu/packages/libevent.scm (libuv)[native-inputs]: indicates
>>   "autoconf-wrapper" needs to be replaced with "autoconf"
>>   on core-updates.
>> * gnu/packages/logging.scm (glog)[native-inputs]: use "autoconf"
>>   instead of "autoconf-wrapper".
>> * gnu/packages/mail.scm (libetpan)[native-inputs]: likewise.
>> * gnu/packages/mate.scm
>>   (mate-icon-theme-faenza)[native-inputs]: add comment on why
>>   "autoconf-wrapper" is used.
>>   (mate-screensaver)[native-inputs]: use "autoconf" instead of
>>   "autoconf-wrapper".
>> * gnu/packages/package-management.scm (guix)[native-inputs]: likewise.
>> * gnu/packages/sawfish.scm (librep)[native-inputs]: likewise.
>> * gnu/packages/video.scm (motion)[native-inputs]: likewise.
>> * gnu/packages/zile.scm (zile)[native-inputs]: likewise.
>
> At first sight it should rebuild much so LGTM!

And I’ve now pushed it.

Thanks, and apologies for forgetting to push it right away!

Ludo’.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.