Re: [Axiom-developer] [build-improvements] Requests for discussion

[Ralf Hemmecke]

Hi Gaby,

> | 3) For developers who want to work on the build process and need to
> | change configure.ac.pamphlet. Here
> | 
> | 	./configure
> |       make configure
>
> That is too circular and too complicated. It is a good recipe for subtle
> bugs.  We don't want to be too clever at that level.
>
> |       autoconf configure.ac > configure
> |       ./configure
> |       make
> |       make install
>
> Currently, here is the sequence I propose -- and I'm using right now
>
>     (1) modify configure.ac.pamphlet
>     (2) run ./build-setup.sh            -- you don't need to know what
>                                         -- it does, except it does the
>                                         -- right thing for you
>     (3) ./configure && make && make install

First of all let me say that I have no idea how all this 
autoconf/automake works... So I expect to learn something through this 
thread.

I don't see a difference between

>     (1) modify configure.ac.pamphlet
>     (2) run ./build-setup.sh

and my suggested

        modify configure.ac.pamphlet
        make configure

In my previous mail I suggested "./configure && make configure" but that 
was only to make sure that "noweb" is found by "configure" if you have 
it installed somewhere, then of course you don't need to run 'configure'.

Now whether you call "build-setup.sh" or "make configure" isn't much of 
a difference. Is it? It is responsible for creating configure.ac from 
configure.ac.pamphlet.

I know that "make" checks whether the "Makefile" is as new as it could 
be. But does it check whether there is Makefile.in or Makefile.am and 
re-generates the Makefile from that???

And why do you insist on having all Makefiles generated during 
"configure"? For me it is perfectly fine if the Makefiles are 
regenerated from their .pamphlets during the build of Axiom. It is only 
that the Makefiles should more rely on variables that define programs 
like using ${TAR} instead of just tar.

Or is the whole thing more complicated than I think?

> | Gaby, it is only you who must run
> | 
> | notangle configure.ac.pamphlet > configure.ac
> | autoconf configure.ac > configure
>
> I do expect other developers making changes to
> configure.ac.pamphlet (and later to any Makefile.am.pamphlet) to run
> equivalent commands.  Fortunately, that is all taken care of by
> build-setup.sh.  :-)

So each time I modify a file which is called configure.ac.pamphlet or 
Makefile.am.pamphlet, I should run "build-setup.sh". What if I forget 
that? There should be at least a warning telling me that I should run 
"build-setup.sh".

> build-setup.sh is not an end-user stuff.  It is only for maintainers
> of the build machinery.

That's clear.

> Bill suggested we don't keep configure.ac.  I fear we must kepp it --
> for the purpose of preventing the build machinery maintainers from
> introducing subtle bugs.  Components of Autotools have dependency on
> such files in several circumstances.

Can you make up an example so that we see what problems can occur and 
appreciate why we should keep configure.ac. Then that should be 
documented (in a pamphlet file) describing the build process.
Currently, I also don't feel need for configure.ac, given that 
maintainers have noweb and configure.ac.pamphlet.

Ralf