[gentoo-dev] autotools.eclass eautomake update

[gentoo-dev] autotools.eclass eautomake update

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 266 bytes --]

ive updated eautomake to run automake in a few more edge cases.  hopefully 
this doesnt break anything else (seems to not on my system), but who knows.

if you see random eautoreconf/eautomake failure, try backing out the 
autotools.eclass change first.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] autotools.eclass eautomake update

[Petteri Räty]

On 24.5.2010 1.54, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> ive updated eautomake to run automake in a few more edge cases.  hopefully 
> this doesnt break anything else (seems to not on my system), but who knows.
> 
> if you see random eautoreconf/eautomake failure, try backing out the 
> autotools.eclass change first.
> -mike

I think any autotools.eclass behavior changes would benefit from being
sent to gentoo-dev for review first. It could also have been taken on a
spin in one of the tinderboxes.

Regards,
Petteri

Re: [gentoo-dev] autotools.eclass eautomake update

[Mike Frysinger]

On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Petteri Räty wrote:
> On 24.5.2010 1.54, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> ive updated eautomake to run automake in a few more edge cases.  hopefully
>> this doesnt break anything else (seems to not on my system), but who knows.
>>
>> if you see random eautoreconf/eautomake failure, try backing out the
>> autotools.eclass change first.
>
> I think any autotools.eclass behavior changes would benefit from being
> sent to gentoo-dev for review first.

if i felt most people had an understanding of how autotools worked let
alone how autotools.eclass, then perhaps i would
-mike

Re: [gentoo-dev] autotools.eclass eautomake update

[Petteri Räty]

On 24.5.2010 23.51, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Petteri Räty wrote:
>> On 24.5.2010 1.54, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> ive updated eautomake to run automake in a few more edge cases.  hopefully
>>> this doesnt break anything else (seems to not on my system), but who knows.
>>>
>>> if you see random eautoreconf/eautomake failure, try backing out the
>>> autotools.eclass change first.
>>
>> I think any autotools.eclass behavior changes would benefit from being
>> sent to gentoo-dev for review first.
> 
> if i felt most people had an understanding of how autotools worked let
> alone how autotools.eclass, then perhaps i would
> -mike
> 

And what do you loose by sending them here? The devmanual text strictly
doesn't enforce it but strongly encourages: "Before updating eutils or a
similar widely used eclass, it is best to email the gentoo-dev list."

http://devmanual.gentoo.org/eclass-writing/index.html

Regards,
Petteri

Re: [gentoo-dev] autotools.eclass eautomake update

[Mike Frysinger]

On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Petteri Räty wrote:
> On 24.5.2010 23.51, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Petteri Räty wrote:
>>> On 24.5.2010 1.54, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>>> ive updated eautomake to run automake in a few more edge cases.  hopefully
>>>> this doesnt break anything else (seems to not on my system), but who knows.
>>>>
>>>> if you see random eautoreconf/eautomake failure, try backing out the
>>>> autotools.eclass change first.
>>>
>>> I think any autotools.eclass behavior changes would benefit from being
>>> sent to gentoo-dev for review first.
>>
>> if i felt most people had an understanding of how autotools worked let
>> alone how autotools.eclass, then perhaps i would
>
> And what do you loose by sending them here? The devmanual text strictly
> doesn't enforce it but strongly encourages: "Before updating eutils or a
> similar widely used eclass, it is best to email the gentoo-dev list."

so prove me wrong and post some useful feedback on the change.  i'm
simply being realistic.
sources.gentoo.org/eclass/autotools.eclass?r1=1.97&r2=1.98
-mike

Re: [gentoo-dev] autotools.eclass eautomake update

[Rémi Cardona]

Le 25/05/2010 00:17, Mike Frysinger a écrit :
> so prove me wrong and post some useful feedback on the change.  i'm
> simply being realistic.

Even if you think no one will ever comment on your patches, I've seen
enough projects where posting patches and doing reviews generated
interest and got people to contribute.

Unless you want to keep this eclass to yourself, posting patches is a
Good Thing (tm).

> sources.gentoo.org/eclass/autotools.eclass?r1=1.97&r2=1.98

Maybe you should grep for AC_INIT_AUTOMAKE too, as that's what lots of
folks used a while ago.

Cheers,

Rémi

Re: [gentoo-dev] autotools.eclass eautomake update

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 720 bytes --]

On Tuesday 25 May 2010 02:54:27 Rémi Cardona wrote:
> Le 25/05/2010 00:17, Mike Frysinger a écrit :
> > so prove me wrong and post some useful feedback on the change.  i'm
> > simply being realistic.
> 
> Even if you think no one will ever comment on your patches, I've seen
> enough projects where posting patches and doing reviews generated
> interest and got people to contribute.

i'm just asking for proof that it's useful here

> > sources.gentoo.org/eclass/autotools.eclass?r1=1.97&r2=1.98
> 
> Maybe you should grep for AC_INIT_AUTOMAKE too, as that's what lots of
> folks used a while ago.

no, because that isnt how autoreconf works today.  current behavior mimics 
current autotools.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] autotools.eclass eautomake update

[Rémi Cardona]

Le 25/05/2010 09:23, Mike Frysinger a écrit :
>> Even if you think no one will ever comment on your patches, I've seen
>> enough projects where posting patches and doing reviews generated
>> interest and got people to contribute.
> 
> i'm just asking for proof that it's useful here

And I'm asking you to try it regardless of proof. Consider this a social
experiment.

> no, because that isnt how autoreconf works today.  current behavior mimics 
> current autotools.

Makes sense, thanks for the explanation.

Cheers,

Rémi

Re: [gentoo-dev] autotools.eclass eautomake update

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 514 bytes --]

On Tuesday 25 May 2010 15:22:14 Rémi Cardona wrote:
> Le 25/05/2010 09:23, Mike Frysinger a écrit :
> >> Even if you think no one will ever comment on your patches, I've seen
> >> enough projects where posting patches and doing reviews generated
> >> interest and got people to contribute.
> > 
> > i'm just asking for proof that it's useful here
> 
> And I'm asking you to try it regardless of proof. Consider this a social
> experiment.

i didnt say i wouldnt, just that i was being realistic
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] autotools.eclass eautomake update

[Peter Volkov]

В Пнд, 24/05/2010 в 18:17 -0400, Mike Frysinger пишет:
> sources.gentoo.org/eclass/autotools.eclass?r1=1.97&r2=1.98

for makefile_name in {GNUmakefile,{M,m}akefile}.{am,in} "" ; do

Why "" is required at the end of file list?

-- 
Peter.

[gentoo-dev] Re: autotools.eclass eautomake update

[Duncan]

Peter Volkov posted on Tue, 25 May 2010 11:46:12 +0400 as excerpted:

> В Пнд, 24/05/2010 в 18:17 -0400, Mike Frysinger пишет:
>> sources.gentoo.org/eclass/autotools.eclass?r1=1.97&r2=1.98
> 
> for makefile_name in {GNUmakefile,{M,m}akefile}.{am,in} "" ; do
> 
> Why "" is required at the end of file list?

Interesting coding trick! =:^)  Here's that bit of code in full (watch the 
wrap):

for makefile_name in {GNUmakefile,{M,m}akefile}.{am,in} "" ; do
	[[ -f ${makefile_name} ]] && break
done
[[ -z ${makefile_name} ]] && return 0

The for loop itself doesn't really do anything, except short-circuit 
itself with a break if the named file exists.  What is its purpose, then?

The purpose of the loop is to leave the name of the actual existing 
makefile in the variable makefile_name...

**OR**, the purpose of the "" case, if none of the tested filename 
variants exists, it leaves the variable empty.

The next line then tests for the last case, the empty variable, and short-
circuits the eautomake function itself in that condition, returning 0/no-
error/true.

Without the "" case, the for loop would leave the last tested filename in 
the variable whether it existed or not, and the test for the empty 
variable wouldn't work.

The perhaps more common alternative would be to test the exit status of 
the for loop, which returns the exist status of the last command, in this 
case either break (which would return zero/no-error/true), or the [[ -f ]] 
test itself (which would return 1/false/error if break didn't run).  That 
would result in something like this (untested) code:

for makefile_name in {GNUmakefile,{M,m}akefile}.{am,in} ; do
	[[ -f ${makefile_name} ]] && break
done && return

Assuming no error in my logic (a bit of an assumption since my code isn't 
tested and I expect his code was), I'm not sure why that code wasn't used, 
unless it was deemed less clear (perhaps the && return is too easy to 
miss, tho a separate [[ $? = 0 ]] && return would fix that), or was simple 
choice of coding style.

While we're at it, in "&& return 0", the "0" is ALWAYS superfluous, as 
"return" returns the exit code of the last command by default, which MUST 
be zero or the "&&" logic would have failed, so the "&& return" 
combination will ALWAYS return 0.  But that too may be coding style, as 
the "return 0" makes it explicit, a reasonable enough policy.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: autotools.eclass eautomake update

[Peter Volkov]

В Втр, 25/05/2010 в 12:12 +0000, Duncan пишет:
> Peter Volkov posted on Tue, 25 May 2010 11:46:12 +0400 as excerpted:
> >> sources.gentoo.org/eclass/autotools.eclass?r1=1.97&r2=1.98
> > Why "" is required at the end of file list?

> for makefile_name in {GNUmakefile,{M,m}akefile}.{am,in} "" ; do
>         [[ -f ${makefile_name} ]] && break
> done

> the purpose of the "" case, if none of the tested filename 
> variants exists, it leaves the variable empty.

Thank you Duncan. Now I see :)

-- 
Peter.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: autotools.eclass eautomake update

[Pacho Ramos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 798 bytes --]

El mar, 25-05-2010 a las 16:45 +0400, Peter Volkov escribió:
> В Втр, 25/05/2010 в 12:12 +0000, Duncan пишет:
> > Peter Volkov posted on Tue, 25 May 2010 11:46:12 +0400 as excerpted:
> > >> sources.gentoo.org/eclass/autotools.eclass?r1=1.97&r2=1.98
> > > Why "" is required at the end of file list?
> 
> > for makefile_name in {GNUmakefile,{M,m}akefile}.{am,in} "" ; do
> >         [[ -f ${makefile_name} ]] && break
> > done
> 
> > the purpose of the "" case, if none of the tested filename 
> > variants exists, it leaves the variable empty.
> 
> Thank you Duncan. Now I see :)
> 

From my point of view, seems quite obvious that it's interesting to post
that eclass changes as, even if it's fully ok, it helps other devs (like
me) to learn more :-)

Best regards

[-- Attachment #2: Esta parte del mensaje está firmada digitalmente --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] autotools.eclass eautomake update

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1401 bytes --]

On 05/25/2010 01:17 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Petteri Räty wrote:
>> On 24.5.2010 23.51, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Petteri Räty wrote:
>>>> On 24.5.2010 1.54, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>>>> ive updated eautomake to run automake in a few more edge cases.  hopefully
>>>>> this doesnt break anything else (seems to not on my system), but who knows.
>>>>>
>>>>> if you see random eautoreconf/eautomake failure, try backing out the
>>>>> autotools.eclass change first.
>>>>
>>>> I think any autotools.eclass behavior changes would benefit from being
>>>> sent to gentoo-dev for review first.
>>>
>>> if i felt most people had an understanding of how autotools worked let
>>> alone how autotools.eclass, then perhaps i would
>>
>> And what do you loose by sending them here? The devmanual text strictly
>> doesn't enforce it but strongly encourages: "Before updating eutils or a
>> similar widely used eclass, it is best to email the gentoo-dev list."
> 
> so prove me wrong and post some useful feedback on the change.  i'm
> simply being realistic.
> sources.gentoo.org/eclass/autotools.eclass?r1=1.97&r2=1.98
> -mike
> 

Even if people don't have useful feedback sending the diff enables them
to prepare for the upcoming changes and provide support to users if
something goes wrong.

Regards,
PEtteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] autotools.eclass eautomake update

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 302 bytes --]

On Tuesday 25 May 2010 16:02:04 Petteri Räty wrote:
> Even if people don't have useful feedback sending the diff enables them
> to prepare for the upcoming changes and provide support to users if
> something goes wrong.

which is irrelevant here because i did notify people of the change
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] autotools.eclass eautomake update

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 580 bytes --]

On 05/25/2010 11:12 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 25 May 2010 16:02:04 Petteri Räty wrote:
>> Even if people don't have useful feedback sending the diff enables them
>> to prepare for the upcoming changes and provide support to users if
>> something goes wrong.
> 
> which is irrelevant here because i did notify people of the change
> -mike

My point was that if you are going to send an email to gentoo-dev any
way, why not do it earlier with the diff? The only trouble to you is
attaching the diff and as said it can have benefits.

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] autotools.eclass eautomake update

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 613 bytes --]

On Tuesday 25 May 2010 16:38:16 Petteri Räty wrote:
> On 05/25/2010 11:12 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tuesday 25 May 2010 16:02:04 Petteri Räty wrote:
> >> Even if people don't have useful feedback sending the diff enables them
> >> to prepare for the upcoming changes and provide support to users if
> >> something goes wrong.
> > 
> > which is irrelevant here because i did notify people of the change
> 
> My point was that if you are going to send an email to gentoo-dev any
> way, why not do it earlier with the diff?

because all of the e-mail stuff occurred to me after the fact
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]