[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: a saner bootstrap script

From: Gary V. Vaughan
Subject: Re: a saner bootstrap script
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 14:08:54 +0700

Hi Jim,

On 5 Oct 2011, at 00:16, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
>> On 4 Oct 2011, at 17:09, Jim Meyering wrote:
>>> Do you feel like rebasing it?
>> Sure, although it will take me a few days to find the time - is that because
>> you're planning to adopt my bootstrap script into coreutils master 
>> unilaterally?
>> If not then you can easily checkout my coreutils snapshot from github to 
>> verify
>> that it is perfectly sane.
>> Really, I'm trying to help gnulib to adopt the script first and foremost...
>> although the last few Zile releases have been using it, and I'll be making
>> a Libtool release in the next week or so that uses it irrespective of gnulib
>> adoption.  And I expect I'll also put an M4 alpha out with that script too
>> before long.  So, if you want to unilaterally take the script into coreutils
>> too, then I'll be very happy to provide any assistance I can with updating
>> the coreutils bootstrap.conf I wrote all those months ago.
> I'm trying it solely because you've invested so much in it and asked so
> many times.  I'm certainly not chomping at the bit for a new version.

I understand, and appreciate you're making that effort.  Thank you!

> However, I confess that I was disappointed by your rejection of some of
> the style-related suggestions made by Stefano, and have to say that if I
> do use it, the copy I use in coreutils, grep, gzip, patch, parted, etc.
> will inherit most, if not all, of his suggestions.

I'm not at all opposed to style changes by other committers subsequent to
adopting the script into gnulib, and I even volunteered to make the changes
myself if not doing so proved to be a barrier to acceptance.  But, unless I
have to do it, I'd rather not spend my time changing my code out of the
coding style I prefer.  Of course, if the thing is accepted into gnulib then
my personal preferences carry far less weight, and I understand perfectly if
the script is edited into whatever style gnulib developers prefer.

>>>> I just tried to check that everything in my coreutils bootstrap.conf still
>>>> works correctly with coreutils master, but unfortunately coreutils 
>>>> bootstrap
>>>> now requires that I install the latest autotools -- including 
>>>> gettext-
>>>> which doesn't compile on Mac OS 10.7.1 with the latest Apple supplied gcc
>>>> (4.2.1 LLVM).  And without that, I can no longer bootstrap coreutils on my
>>>> Mac :-(
>>> If it's a gettext problem, report it and it should be fixed very quickly.
>>> Otherwise, just adjust the AM_GNU_GETTEXT_VERSION([0.18.1]) line
>>> in configure.ac to accommodate whatever version of gettext you have.
>>> You should be ok if it's 0.17.x.
>> If an older version of gettext is sufficient, then can you please require
>> that version instead?  Gettext is a large complex package that is quite a
> Using an older version is sufficient to ensure that your script works
> with coreutils.  I don't see why everyone should accept an older version
> just because a build-glitch affects one type of system.  The work-around
> is trivial.

Maybe I misunderstand AM_GNU_GETTEXT_VERSION then?  I thought that it was
to document the minimum compatible version like AC_PREREQ, not to enforce
a specific version.  (Forgive my ignorance: I'm not really a gettext user
since English is my only language, so gettext is just another dependency I
have to build to keep the packages I do use happy, and even then I always
build with --disable-nls to minimise installation of files I'll never use.)

>> At least as far as Mac OS 10.7 is concerned, I tracked the problem down to
>> a bug in the gnulib non-release that was used to bootstrap gettext-,
>> which has since been fixed in gnulib.
> Again, did you report it?

Yes, I did.  Both on this list and at bug-gnu-gettext, along with a pointer
to the MacPorts patch that got me past the bug.

>> I haven't had time yet to pick up the coreutils bootstrap.conf update, but
>> I'll probably be able to get to it by the end of the week.  If you're in a
>> hurry, then I think you might find writing your own updated bootstrap.conf
>> would be instructive in the vast improvements I think the new bootstrap I've
>> written brings to the table - and maybe help build enough confidence in it
>> that you'd like to help me adopt it into upstream gnulib?
> If I go with it, it will eventually gain at least 10 new client packages.
> However, I don't have a lot of time to invest in the transition,
> so anything you can do to make it easier may go a long way.

And that alone will be a big vote of confidence toward my goal of having it
adopted into gnulib in place of the existing script. I'll ping this thread when
I've finished the update.

Gary V. Vaughan (gary AT gnu DOT org)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]