[gentoo-dev] Why autoconf in system?

[gentoo-dev] Why autoconf in system?

[Frank Schafer]

Hi,

we meet often the (faulty) notion that autoconf/automake (even a couple
of versions on gentoo) is a dependency for packages.

This is true only for development of these packages itself.
Autoconf/automake provides tools to GENERATE configure scripts. Both are
totally unnecessary to build a package or run the programs it provides.
I've built a full featured LFS system not long ago without even
autoconf/automake installed.

I'd suggest to remove the build of autoconf/automake from ``emerge
system''. I'd leave all of the autoconf/automake versions in portage
tough for the case someone wants to involve in development of some
package.

Bug report regarding to this follows.

Regards
Frank
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Why autoconf in system?

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1149 bytes --]

On Monday 12 September 2005 14:26, Frank Schafer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> we meet often the (faulty) notion that autoconf/automake (even a couple
> of versions on gentoo) is a dependency for packages.
>
> This is true only for development of these packages itself.
> Autoconf/automake provides tools to GENERATE configure scripts. Both are
> totally unnecessary to build a package or run the programs it provides.
> I've built a full featured LFS system not long ago without even
> autoconf/automake installed.
>
> I'd suggest to remove the build of autoconf/automake from ``emerge
> system''. I'd leave all of the autoconf/automake versions in portage
> tough for the case someone wants to involve in development of some
> package.

One reason is that there are many packages that have faulty/incomplete 
versions of the scripts, or that have patches applied to the configure 
script. For those packages automake/autoconf must be installed at make time 
as automake/autoconf must be ran during the building of those packages.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Why autoconf in system?

[Martin Schlemmer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1007 bytes --]

On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 14:26 +0200, Frank Schafer wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> we meet often the (faulty) notion that autoconf/automake (even a couple
> of versions on gentoo) is a dependency for packages.
> 
> This is true only for development of these packages itself.
> Autoconf/automake provides tools to GENERATE configure scripts. Both are
> totally unnecessary to build a package or run the programs it provides.
> I've built a full featured LFS system not long ago without even
> autoconf/automake installed.
> 
> I'd suggest to remove the build of autoconf/automake from ``emerge
> system''. I'd leave all of the autoconf/automake versions in portage
> tough for the case someone wants to involve in development of some
> package.
> 

While this is true, you missed the fact that many packages from time to
time apply patches that touches configure.{ac,in}, or Makefile.am, or
just do not come tarballed with configure, etc generated, so it is
indeed needed.


-- 
Martin Schlemmer


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Why autoconf in system?

[Mike Frysinger]

On Monday 12 September 2005 08:26 am, Frank Schafer wrote:
> we meet often the (faulty) notion that autoconf/automake (even a couple
> of versions on gentoo) is a dependency for packages.

not quite sure what you mean by 'faulty', autoconf/automake is used heavily 
throughout portage

> I'd suggest to remove the build of autoconf/automake from ``emerge
> system''. I'd leave all of the autoconf/automake versions in portage
> tough for the case someone wants to involve in development of some
> package.

it wouldnt matter, coreutils for example would still need it which means it 
would show up in `emerge system`
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Why autoconf in system?

[Frank Schafer]

On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 08:41 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 12 September 2005 08:26 am, Frank Schafer wrote:
> > we meet often the (faulty) notion that autoconf/automake (even a couple
> > of versions on gentoo) is a dependency for packages.
> 
> not quite sure what you mean by 'faulty', autoconf/automake is used heavily 
> throughout portage
> 
> > I'd suggest to remove the build of autoconf/automake from ``emerge
> > system''. I'd leave all of the autoconf/automake versions in portage
> > tough for the case someone wants to involve in development of some
> > package.
> 
> it wouldnt matter, coreutils for example would still need it which means it 
> would show up in `emerge system`
> -mike

Hi, as I mentioned, I built LFS without this (and I have coreutils on
it ;)

Not at all - if we need to modify or create configure files during build
as Paul and Martin said ... we need autoconf/automake

Thanks for clarification.

Frank

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Why autoconf in system?

[Mike Frysinger]

On Monday 12 September 2005 08:48 am, Frank Schafer wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 08:41 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Monday 12 September 2005 08:26 am, Frank Schafer wrote:
> > > we meet often the (faulty) notion that autoconf/automake (even a couple
> > > of versions on gentoo) is a dependency for packages.
> >
> > not quite sure what you mean by 'faulty', autoconf/automake is used
> > heavily throughout portage
> >
> > > I'd suggest to remove the build of autoconf/automake from ``emerge
> > > system''. I'd leave all of the autoconf/automake versions in portage
> > > tough for the case someone wants to involve in development of some
> > > package.
> >
> > it wouldnt matter, coreutils for example would still need it which means
> > it would show up in `emerge system`
>
> Hi, as I mentioned, I built LFS without this (and I have coreutils on
> it ;)

last i checked, Gentoo != LFS, so i dont really see what your point is

we patch source files heavily and regenerate the configure/Makefile.in files 
in coreutils
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Why autoconf in system?

[Stephen P. Becker]

> Hi, as I mentioned, I built LFS without this (and I have coreutils on
> it ;)
> 
> Not at all - if we need to modify or create configure files during build
> as Paul and Martin said ... we need autoconf/automake

And furthermore, many programs (or upstream authors if you prefer) are 
braindead and don't know what some non-x86 arches are without updating 
the config.sub/config.guess, and re-running autoconf/automake.

-Steve
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Why autoconf in system?

[Mike Frysinger]

On Monday 12 September 2005 08:58 am, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> > Hi, as I mentioned, I built LFS without this (and I have coreutils on
> > it ;)
> >
> > Not at all - if we need to modify or create configure files during build
> > as Paul and Martin said ... we need autoconf/automake
>
> And furthermore, many programs (or upstream authors if you prefer) are
> braindead and don't know what some non-x86 arches are without updating
> the config.sub/config.guess, and re-running autoconf/automake.

those two files dont require re-running autoconf/automake

it isnt uncommon though to have upstream run autotools in the wrong order and 
package the result as their release ... then when you run `./configure && 
make`, the build system has mismatched timestamps and thus tries to invoke 
autotools to fix itself :/
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Why autoconf in system?

[Martin Schlemmer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1233 bytes --]

On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 10:38 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 12 September 2005 08:58 am, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> > > Hi, as I mentioned, I built LFS without this (and I have coreutils on
> > > it ;)
> > >
> > > Not at all - if we need to modify or create configure files during build
> > > as Paul and Martin said ... we need autoconf/automake
> >
> > And furthermore, many programs (or upstream authors if you prefer) are
> > braindead and don't know what some non-x86 arches are without updating
> > the config.sub/config.guess, and re-running autoconf/automake.
> 
> those two files dont require re-running autoconf/automake
> 
> it isnt uncommon though to have upstream run autotools in the wrong order and 
> package the result as their release ... then when you run `./configure && 
> make`, the build system has mismatched timestamps and thus tries to invoke 
> autotools to fix itself :/

Toss in libtool in the mess, and it runs aclocal, autoconf and then
automake, and you end up with a mismatched ltmain.sh and whatever
macro's of libtool expanded in configure, causing either breakage
(random or not), or in our case an error informing about the mismatch :/


-- 
Martin Schlemmer


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]