[gentoo-dev] autotools eclass - set default for WANT_AUTO*

[gentoo-dev] autotools eclass - set default for WANT_AUTO*

[Alon Bar-Lev]

Hello,

Is there any reason why not setting "latest" as default for WANT_AUTO* 
variables?

I believe that an ebuild should set these variables only if there is 
some exception.

Best Regards,
Alon Bar-Lev.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] autotools eclass - set default for WANT_AUTO*

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 286 bytes --]

On Saturday 06 January 2007 05:10, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> Is there any reason why not setting "latest" as default for WANT_AUTO*
> variables?
>
> I believe that an ebuild should set these variables only if there is
> some exception.

that seems like a not-too-shabby idea actually
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] autotools eclass - set default for WANT_AUTO*

[Kevin F. Quinn]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 523 bytes --]

On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 05:21:48 -0500
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Saturday 06 January 2007 05:10, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> > Is there any reason why not setting "latest" as default for
> > WANT_AUTO* variables?
> >
> > I believe that an ebuild should set these variables only if there is
> > some exception.
> 
> that seems like a not-too-shabby idea actually

Not sure.  Would we run the risk that working ebuilds would start to
fail when newer autotools versions arrive?

-- 
Kevin F. Quinn

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] autotools eclass - set default for WANT_AUTO*

[Alon Bar-Lev]

On 1/6/07, Kevin F. Quinn <kevquinn@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Not sure.  Would we run the risk that working ebuilds would start to
> fail when newer autotools versions arrive?

So what do you suggest of putting? Current revision?
And we can drop the "latest" support... right?
But then we should handle old ebuilds that use old auto*.
I think a specific version should be specified only if something
breaks with latest,
thus it should be the default.

Best Regards,
Alon Bar-Lev.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: autotools eclass - set default for WANT_AUTO*

[Steve Long]

Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> I think a specific version should be specified only if something
> breaks with latest,
> thus it should be the default.
++

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] autotools eclass - set default for WANT_AUTO*

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 778 bytes --]

On Saturday 06 January 2007 09:47, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Saturday 06 January 2007 05:10, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> > > Is there any reason why not setting "latest" as default for
> > > WANT_AUTO* variables?
> > >
> > > I believe that an ebuild should set these variables only if there is
> > > some exception.
> >
> > that seems like a not-too-shabby idea actually
>
> Not sure.  Would we run the risk that working ebuilds would start to
> fail when newer autotools versions arrive?

which is no different from the current behavior ... we're sticking "latest" 
into all of our ebuilds now

besides, if code doesnt work with the latest autotools, it should be fixed ... 
it should not force older versions
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] autotools eclass - set default for WANT_AUTO*

[Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 645 bytes --]

On Saturday 06 January 2007 11:10, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> Is there any reason why not setting "latest" as default for WANT_AUTO*
> variables?
Because then stuff will "magically" work in stable, and break in ~arch, and 
you won't know why it's happening.

Instead if you follow the procedure (set the variables) you know that you 
asked for latest version, and you'll be able to check what the problem is.

Yes, I expect automake 1.11 to break even more, as they are coming around.

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Sound, ALSA, PAM, KDE, CJK, Ruby ...

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] autotools eclass - set default for WANT_AUTO*

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 614 bytes --]

On Saturday 06 January 2007 10:22, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Saturday 06 January 2007 11:10, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> > Is there any reason why not setting "latest" as default for WANT_AUTO*
> > variables?
>
> Because then stuff will "magically" work in stable, and break in ~arch, and
> you won't know why it's happening.

i dont follow

> Instead if you follow the procedure (set the variables) you know that you
> asked for latest version, and you'll be able to check what the problem is.

what does it matter if all of the ebuilds declare latest or the eclass 
declares latest ?
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] autotools eclass - set default for WANT_AUTO*

[Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 404 bytes --]

On Saturday 06 January 2007 16:42, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> what does it matter if all of the ebuilds declare latest or the eclass
> declares latest ?
Weren't we going to allow declaring "1.10 1.9" soon, so that we could stop 
using "latest" ?

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Sound, ALSA, PAM, KDE, CJK, Ruby ...

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] autotools eclass - set default for WANT_AUTO*

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 540 bytes --]

On Saturday 06 January 2007 11:05, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Saturday 06 January 2007 16:42, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > what does it matter if all of the ebuilds declare latest or the eclass
> > declares latest ?
>
> Weren't we going to allow declaring "1.10 1.9" soon, so that we could stop
> using "latest" ?

no, that was not the reason at all for the new syntax

the reason was so in the *eclass* you could translate latest to "1.10 1.9" and 
drop the need of executing that helper function in local scope
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] autotools eclass - set default for WANT_AUTO*

[Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 633 bytes --]

On Saturday 06 January 2007 18:25, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> the reason was so in the *eclass* you could translate latest to "1.10 1.9"
> and drop the need of executing that helper function in local scope
Right, but I thought the other one, too..

Well, I suppose it would do little harm at this point to default to latest, 
and be done with that, and allow specifying 1.10 1.9 in the future (when mips 
and ppc would keyword the wrapper) so that we cover that base too.

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Sound, ALSA, PAM, KDE, CJK, Ruby ...

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] autotools eclass - set default for WANT_AUTO*

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 774 bytes --]

On Saturday 06 January 2007 13:00, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Saturday 06 January 2007 18:25, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > the reason was so in the *eclass* you could translate latest to "1.10
> > 1.9" and drop the need of executing that helper function in local scope
>
> Right, but I thought the other one, too..
>
> Well, I suppose it would do little harm at this point to default to latest,
> and be done with that, and allow specifying 1.10 1.9 in the future (when
> mips and ppc would keyword the wrapper) so that we cover that base too.

why not just get rid of the idea of "latest" ?  is there a scenario where 
autotools would be inherited but not actually used/added to DEPEND ?  i guess 
that's what this all comes down to really ...
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] autotools eclass - set default for WANT_AUTO*

[Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 681 bytes --]

On Saturday 06 January 2007 19:23, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> why not just get rid of the idea of "latest" ?  is there a scenario where
> autotools would be inherited but not actually used/added to DEPEND ?  i
> guess that's what this all comes down to really ...
If autotools were to be inherited by an eclass, and left to the eclass users 
to depending on the correct versions, I'd say.

Although for kde I simply preferred to depend always and be done with that (as 
half of KDE packages anyway already use them).

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Sound, ALSA, PAM, KDE, CJK, Ruby ...

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] autotools eclass - set default for WANT_AUTO*

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 520 bytes --]

On Saturday 06 January 2007 13:32, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Saturday 06 January 2007 19:23, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > why not just get rid of the idea of "latest" ?  is there a scenario where
> > autotools would be inherited but not actually used/added to DEPEND ?  i
> > guess that's what this all comes down to really ...
>
> If autotools were to be inherited by an eclass, and left to the eclass
> users to depending on the correct versions, I'd say.

and how likely is this situation ?
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] autotools eclass - set default for WANT_AUTO*

[Alon Bar-Lev]

On 1/7/07, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Saturday 06 January 2007 13:32, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> > On Saturday 06 January 2007 19:23, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > why not just get rid of the idea of "latest" ? is there a scenario where
> > > autotools would be inherited but not actually used/added to DEPEND ? i
> > > guess that's what this all comes down to really ...
> >
> > If autotools were to be inherited by an eclass, and left to the eclass
> > users to depending on the correct versions, I'd say.
>
> and how likely is this situation ?
> -mike

Well.... What is the verdict?
1. Add default.
2. Explicit specify version in WANT_AUTO*.
3. Continue adding WANT_AUTO*="latest" everyplace.

Best Regards,
Alon Bar-Lev

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] autotools eclass - set default for WANT_AUTO*

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 357 bytes --]

On Sunday 07 January 2007 11:27, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> 1. Add default.

we've gone this route ... if/when an issue comes up where someone is 
inheriting autotools but they're using it conditionally, we'll revisit this

autotools.eclass:
[[ -z ${WANT_AUTOCONF} ]] && WANT_AUTOCONF="latest"
[[ -z ${WANT_AUTOMAKE} ]] && WANT_AUTOMAKE="latest"
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] autotools eclass - set default for WANT_AUTO*

[Alon Bar-Lev]

On 1/12/07, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sunday 07 January 2007 11:27, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> > 1. Add default.
>
> we've gone this route ... if/when an issue comes up where someone is
> inheriting autotools but they're using it conditionally, we'll revisit this
>
> autotools.eclass:
> [[ -z ${WANT_AUTOCONF} ]] && WANT_AUTOCONF="latest"
> [[ -z ${WANT_AUTOMAKE} ]] && WANT_AUTOMAKE="latest"
> -mike

Thanks!
After you commit this, I will go over all my packages and remove the
latest setting.

Best Regards,
Alon Bar-Lev.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] autotools eclass - set default for WANT_AUTO*

[Mike Frysinger]

On Friday 12 January 2007 13:37, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> After you commit this

Diego already did
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] autotools eclass - set default for WANT_AUTO*

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 246 bytes --]

On Friday 12 January 2007 13:14, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> if/when an issue comes up where someone is
> inheriting autotools but they're using it conditionally, we'll revisit this

seems Diego is two steps ahead ... set the vars to "none" :)
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]