[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Future plans for Autotools
Re: Future plans for Autotools
Wed, 20 Jan 2021 15:15:17 -0800
Next step might be to set up continuous integration for Autotools,
with automated testing on the core list of supported platforms, and
use that to do a nearly-no-change release that just fixes any bugs
that show up by the time it's working.
I have no time and cannot plausibly volunteer to work on it, but given
that I got a lot of benefit out of autotools, understand it at a
motivated user level, and have set up a lot of CI, it is tempting to
On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 2:16 PM Zack Weinberg <email@example.com> wrote:
> Now we've all had a while to recover from the long-awaited Autoconf
> 2.70 release, I'd like to start a conversation about where the
> Autotools in general might be going in the future. Clearly any future
> development depends on finding people who will do the work, but before
> we worry about that I think we might want to figure out what work we
> _want_ to do.
> As a starting point, I wrote up a "strengths, weaknesses,
> opportunities, and threats" analysis for Autotools -- this is a
> standard project management technique, if you're not familiar with it,
> there's a nice writeup in the draft of the book my friend and
> colleague Sumana Harihareswara is writing [
> https://changeset.nyc/resources/getting-unstuck-sampler-offer.html ].
> I'm going to paste the full text of this analysis below, please reply
> inline. You can also read it on my blog at
> https://www.owlfolio.org/development/autoconf-swot/ .
> I’ve been a contributor to GNU projects for many years, notably both
> GCC and GNU libc, and recently I led the effort to make the first
> release of Autoconf since 2012 (release announcement for Autoconf
> 2.70). For background and context, see the LWN article my colleague
> Sumana Harihareswara of Changeset Consulting wrote.
> Autoconf not having made a release in eight years is a symptom of a
> deeper problem. Many GNU projects, including all of the other
> components of the Autotools (Automake, Libtool, Gnulib, etc.) and the
> software they depend upon (GNU M4, GNU Make, etc.) have seen a steady
> decline in both contributor enthusiasm and user base over the past
> decade. I include myself in the group of declining enthusiasts; I
> would not have done the work leading up to the Autoconf 2.70 release
> if I had not been paid to do it. (I would like to say thank you to the
> project funders: Bloomberg, Keith Bostic, and the GNU Toolchain Fund
> of the FSF.)
> The Autotools are in particularly bad shape due to the decline in
> contributor enthusiasm. Preparation for the Autoconf 2.70 release took
> almost twice as long as anticipated; I made five beta releases between
> July and December 2020, and merged 157 patches, most of them bugfixes.
> On more than one occasion I was asked why I was going to the
> trouble—isn’t Autoconf (and the rest of the tools by implication)
> thoroughly obsolete? Why doesn’t everyone switch to something newer,
> like CMake or Meson? (See the comments on Sumana’s LWN article for
> I personally don’t think that the Autotools are obsolete, or even all
> that much more difficult to work with than some of the alternatives,
> but it is a fair question. Should development of the Autotools
> continue? If they are to continue, we need to find people who have the
> time and the inclination (and perhaps also the funding) to maintain
> them steadily, rather than in six-month release sprints every eight
> years. We also need a proper roadmap for where further development
> should take these projects. As a starting point for the conversation
> about whether the projects should continue, and what the roadmap
> should be, I was inspired by Sumana’s book in progress on open source
> project management (sample chapters are available from her website) to
> write up a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats analysis
> of Autotools.
> This inventory can help us figure out how to build on new
> opportunities, using the Autotools’ substantial strengths, and where
> to invest to guard against threats and shore up current weaknesses.
> Followup discussion should go to the Autoconf mailing list.
> In summary: as the category leader for decades, the Autotools benefit
> from their architectural approach, interoperability, edge case
> coverage, standards adherence, user trust, and existing install base.
> Autoconf’s feature-based approach to compiled-code portability scales
> better than lists of system quirks.
> The Autotools carry 30+ years’ worth of embedded knowledge about
> portability traps for C programs and shell-based build scripting on
> Unix (and to a lesser extent Windows and others), including variants
> of Unix that no other comparable configuration tool supports.
> Autoconf and Automake support cross-compilation better than competing
> build systems.
> Autoconf and Automake support software written in multiple languages
> better than some competing build systems (but see below).
> Autoconf is very extensible, and there are lots of third-party macros
> Tarball releases produced by Autotools have fewer build dependencies
> than tarball releases produced by competing tools.
> Tarball releases produced by Autotools have a predictable,
> standardized (literally; it’s a key aspect of the GNU Coding
> Standards) interface for setting build-time options, building them,
> testing them, and installing them.
> Automake tries very hard to generate Makefiles that will work with any
> Make implementation, not just GNU make, and not even just (GNU or BSD)
> The Autotools have excellent reference-level documentation (better
> than CMake and Meson’s).
> As they are GNU projects, users can have confidence that Autotools are
> and will always remain Free Software.
> Relatedly, users can trust that architectural decisions are not driven
> by the needs of particular large corporations.
> There is a large installed base, and switching to a competing build
> system is a lot of work.
> In summary: Autoconf’s core function is to solve a problem that
> software developers, working primarily in C, had in the 1990s/early
> 2000s (during the Unix wars). System programming interfaces have
> become much more standardized since then, and the shell environment,
> much less buggy. Developers of new code, today, looking at existing
> configure scripts and documentation, cannot easily determine which of
> the portability traps Autoconf knows about are still relevant to them.
> Similarly, maintainers of older programs have a hard time knowing
> which of their existing portability checks are still necessary. And
> weak coordination with other Autotools compounds the issue.
> Autoconf (and the rest of the Autotools) are written in a combination
> of four old and difficult programming languages: Bourne shell, the
> portable subset of Make, Perl, and M4. Competing build systems tend to
> use newer, more ergonomic languages, which both makes it easier for
> them to get things done, and makes it easier for them to attract new
> All the supported languages except C and C++ are second-class citizens.
> The set of languages that are supported has no particular rationale.
> Several new and increasingly popular compiled-code languages (e.g.
> Swift and Rust) are not supported, while oddities like Erlang are.
> Much of that 30 years’ worth of embedded knowledge about portability
> traps is obsolete. There’s no systematic policy for deciding when some
> problem is too obsolete to worry about anymore.
> Support for newer platforms, C standard editions, etc. is weaker than
> support for older things.
> Autoconf’s extensibility is unsystematic; many of those third-party
> macros reach into its guts, and do things that create awkward
> compatibility constraints on core development. Same for existing
> The code quality of third-party macros varies widely; bad third-party
> macros reflect poorly on Autoconf proper.
> Some of the ancillary tools distributed with Autoconf don’t work well;
> most importantly, autoupdate (which is supposed to patch a
> configure.ac to bring it in line with current Autoconf’s
> recommendations) is so limited and unreliable that it might be better
> not to have it at all.
> Feature gaps in GNU M4 hold back development of Autoconf.
> The Autotools as a whole
> There are few active developers and no continuing funders.
> GNU project status discourages new contributors because of the
> paperwork requirements and the perceived lack of executive-level
> There is no continuous integration and no culture of code review. Test
> suites exist but are not comprehensive enough (and at the same time
> they’re very slow).
> Bugs, feature requests, and submitted patches are not tracked
> systematically. (This is partially dependent on FSF/GNU infrastructure
> improvements which are indefinitely delayed.)
> There’s a history of releases breaking compatibility, and thus people
> are hesitant to upgrade. At the same time, Linux distributions
> actively want to force-upgrade everything they ship to ensure
> architecture support, leading to upstream/downstream friction.
> Guide-level documentation is superficial and outdated.
> Building an Autotools-based project directly from its VCS checkout is
> often significantly harder than building it from a tarball release,
> and may involve tracking down and installing any number of unusual
> The Autotools depend on other GNU software that is not actively
> maintained, most importantly GNU M4, and to a lesser extent GNU Make.
> Coordination among the Autotools is weak, even though the tools are
> tightly coupled to each other. There are portions of codebases that
> exist solely for interoperability with other tools in the toolchain,
> which leads to overlapping maintainer and reviewer responsibility,
> slow code review and inconvenient copyright assignment processes
> multiplying, and causing confusion and dropped balls. For instance,
> there is code shared among Autoconf, Automake, and/or Gnulib by
> copying files between source repositories; changes to these files are
> extra inconvenient. The lack of coordination also makes it harder for
> tool maintainers to deprecate old functionality, or to decouple
> interfaces to make things more extensible; maintainers do not
> negotiate policies with each other to help. For instance, Autoconf has
> trouble knowing when it is safe to remove internal kludges that old
> versions of Automake depend on, and certain shell commands (e.g.
> aclocal) are distributed with one package but abstractly belong to
> Division of labor among the Autotools, and the sources of third-party
> macros, is ad-hoc and unclear. (Which macros should be part of
> Autoconf proper? Which should be part of Gnulib? Which should be part
> of the Autoconf Macro Archive? Which should be shipped with Automake?
> Which tools should autoreconf know how to run? Etc.)
> Automake and Libtool are not nearly as extensible as Autoconf is.
> Unlike several competitors, Automake only works with Make, not with
> newer build drivers (e.g. Ninja).
> Because Automake tries to generate Makefiles that will work with any
> Make implementation, the Makefiles it generates are much more
> complicated and slow than they would be if they took advantage of GNU
> and/or BSD extensions.
> Libtool is notoriously slow, brittle, and difficult to modify (even
> worse than Autoconf proper). This is partially due to technical debt
> and partially due to maintaining support for completely obsolete
> platforms (e.g. old versions of AIX).
> Libtool has opinions about the proper way to manage shared libraries
> that Linux distributions actively disagree with, forcing them to
> kludge around its code during package builds.
> Alternatives to Libtool have all failed to gain traction, largely
> because Automake only supports building shared libraries using Libtool
> or an exact drop-in replacement.
> Because of its extensible architecture, install base, and wellspring
> of user trust, Autotools can react to these industry changes and thus
> spur increases in usage, investment, and developer contribution.
> Renewed interest in Autotools due to the Autoconf 2.70 release.
> Renewed interest in systems programming due to the new generation of
> systems programming languages (Go, Rust, D, Swift(?), Dart(?), etc.
> may create an opportunity for a build system that handles them well
> particularly if it handles polyglot projects well (see below).
> Cross-compilation is experiencing new appeal because of the increasing
> popularity of ARM and RISC-V CPUs, and of small devices (too small to
> compile their own code) based on these chips.
> The Free software ecosystem as a whole would benefit from a
> reconciliation between the traditional model of software distribution
> (compiled code with stable interfaces, released as tarballs at regular
> intervals, installed once on any given computer and depended on as
> shared libraries and/or binaries) and the newer depend directly on VCS
> checkouts and bundle everything model described below. Autotools
> contributors have the experience and knowledge to lead this effort.
> Funding may be available for projects targeting the weaknesses listed above.
> These threats may lead to a further decrease in Autotools developer
> contribution, funding, and momentum.
> Increasing mindshare of competing projects (CMake, Meson, Generate-Ninja, …).
> Increasing mindshare of programming languages that come with a build
> system that works out of the box, as long as you only use that one
> language in your project. (These systems typically cannot handle a
> polyglot project at all, hence the above opportunity for a third-party
> system that handles polyglot projects well.)
> Increasing preference for building software from VCS checkouts
> (perhaps at a specific tag, perhaps not) rather than via tarballs.
> Increasing mindshare of the software distribution model originated by
> Node.js, Ruby, etc. where each application bundles all of its
> dependencies. While this is considered a profoundly bad idea by Linux
> distribution maintainers in particular (because it makes it much
> harder to find and patch a buggy dependency) and makes it harder for
> end-users to modify the software (because out-of-date dependencies may
> be very different from what their own documentation—describing the
> latest version—says), it is significantly more convenient for upstream
> developers. Competing build systems handle this model much better than
> Autoconf does.
- Future plans for Autotools, Zack Weinberg, 2021/01/20
- Re: Future plans for Autotools,
Dan Kegel <=
- Re: Future plans for Autotools, Gavin Smith, 2021/01/20
- Re: Future plans for Autotools, Bob Friesenhahn, 2021/01/20
- Re: Future plans for Autotools, Kip Warner, 2021/01/20
- Re: Future plans for Autotools, Nate Bargmann, 2021/01/20
- Re: Future plans for Autotools, Zack Weinberg, 2021/01/21