2:02 p.m.
I've made some (minor) changes to 'configure.ac'. What is the proper
way of recreating 'configure'? Running
$ autoreconf --force --no-recursive
fails with warnings about missing templates
autoheader-2.62: warning: missing template: ARCHLIBDIR_USER_DEFINED
autoheader-2.62: Use AC_DEFINE([ARCHLIBDIR_USER_DEFINED], [],
[Description])
autoheader-2.62: warning: missing template: ATHENA_AsciiText_h_
[etc.]
Is this a autoconf-2.61 vs autoconf-2.62 issue?
Thanks.
--- Vladimir
--
Vladimir G. Ivanovic
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
2:21 a.m.
Vladimir G. Ivanovic writes:
I've made some (minor) changes to 'configure.ac'. What is
the proper
way of recreating 'configure'?
`autoconf'
Running
$ autoreconf --force --no-recursive
fails with warnings about missing templates
autoheader-2.62: warning: missing template: ARCHLIBDIR_USER_DEFINED
We don't use automake, autoheader, etc etc. Even the most recent
autoconfs don't support half of the tests we use, making a port to
those tools an exercise in frustration. AFAIK autoreconf expects a
conformant automake project; we aren't, and I doubt we ever will
(converting to decent tool, Scons has been mentioned, would be a much
better use of the effort I bet).
We do have some aclocal stuff in the modules, at least, and maybe in
the top level too. But that's the extent of it.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
3:20 a.m.
* Stephen J Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
We don't use automake, autoheader, etc etc. Even the most
recent
autoconfs don't support half of the tests we use, making a port to
those tools an exercise in frustration. AFAIK autoreconf expects a
conformant automake project; we aren't, and I doubt we ever will
(converting to decent tool, Scons has been mentioned, would be a much
better use of the effort I bet).
SXEmacs has already made the effort, and XEmacs is very welcome to use
any or all of our build chain.[1]
I run a LFS (Linux From Scratch) system here, so I've dealt with a _LOT_
of build chains. I can categorically state with much pride[2] that the
SXEmacs build chain is 2nd to none in the open source world. I include
thoroughness of tests, accuracy of results, and ease of customisation
and maintainability in that bold statement.[3]
Anyway, there's some food for thought.
Footnotes:
[1] Here I go giving you guys yet another reason to migrate to GPLv3 :-P
[2] And just a little bit of bias. :-)
[3] Many kudos to Sebastian Freundt <hroptatyr(a)sxemacs.org> (our
resident build chain guru) for that. And also to Malcolm Purvis
for doing the initial autoconf 2.5x migration.
--
|---<Steve Youngs>---------------<GnuPG KeyID: A94B3003>---|
| SXEmacs - The only _______ you'll ever need. |
| Fill in the blank, yes, it's THAT good! |
|------------------------------------<steve(a)sxemacs.org>---|
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
7:10 a.m.
Are you saying that 'configure.ac' could be removed from the
distribution with no ill effects and that 'configure' has to be edited
by hand? (Someone generated some version of 'configure' using autoconf
2.61, according to the comments in 'configure'.)
All I really want to do it submit a simple patch, to either
'configure' if that's the right thing to do, or to 'configure.ac' if
that's the right thing to do. Which is it?
--- Vladimir
on 09/17/2008 06:21 PM Stephen J. Turnbull said the following:
Vladimir G. Ivanovic writes:
> I've made some (minor) changes to 'configure.ac'. What is the proper
> way of recreating 'configure'?
`autoconf'
> Running
>
> $ autoreconf --force --no-recursive
>
> fails with warnings about missing templates
>
> autoheader-2.62: warning: missing template: ARCHLIBDIR_USER_DEFINED
We don't use automake, autoheader, etc etc. Even the most recent
autoconfs don't support half of the tests we use, making a port to
those tools an exercise in frustration. AFAIK autoreconf expects a
conformant automake project; we aren't, and I doubt we ever will
(converting to decent tool, Scons has been mentioned, would be a much
better use of the effort I bet).
We do have some aclocal stuff in the modules, at least, and maybe in
the top level too. But that's the extent of it.
--
Vladimir G. Ivanovic
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
8:12 a.m.
>>>> Vladimir wrote:
Vladimir> Are you saying that 'configure.ac' could be removed from the
Vladimir> distribution with no ill effects and that 'configure' has to
Vladimir> be edited by hand?
No, just that automake etc isn't used.
Vladimir> (Someone generated some version of 'configure' using
Vladimir> autoconf 2.61, according to the comments in 'configure'.)
I'm afraid that someone must be me! Should I have used 2.62 or what?
Vladimir> All I really want to do it submit a simple patch, to either
Vladimir> 'configure' if that's the right thing to do, or to
Vladimir> 'configure.ac' if that's the right thing to do. Which is it?
My understanding is that the patch you submit is for
configure.ac. However since we don't require users checking out from
hg to generate configure also configure needs to be patched. That
should be done when the configure.ac patch is applied so that
configure.ac and configure is in sync.
Yours
--
%% Mats
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
6:51 a.m.
Vladimir G. Ivanovic writes:
Are you saying that 'configure.ac' could be removed from the
distribution with no ill effects and that 'configure' has to be edited
by hand?
No, that means that you have to run `autoconf', not `autoREconf'.
(Someone generated some version of 'configure' using autoconf
2.61,
according to the comments in 'configure'.)
If `autoconf' succeeds, I don't think it matters which version you
use.
All I really want to do it submit a simple patch, to either
'configure' if that's the right thing to do, or to 'configure.ac' if
that's the right thing to do. Which is it?
Submit the patch against configure.ac (for 21.5) and configure.in (for
21.4).
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
6:59 p.m.
on 09/18/2008 10:51 PM Stephen J. Turnbull said the following:
Vladimir G. Ivanovic writes:
> Are you saying that 'configure.ac' could be removed from the
> distribution with no ill effects and that 'configure' has to be edited
> by hand?
No, that means that you have to run `autoconf', not `autoREconf'.
Running 'autoconf' with an unpatched 'configure.ac' creates a
'configure' that, when run, generates a warning:
configure: WARNING: Unrecognized options: --with-gcc, --with-cflags,
--with-cflags-debugging, --with-xft, --with-wmcommand, --with-mule,
--with-memory-usage-stats
Every option I included on the 'configure' command line is listed, but
the output seems OK.
What's the correct way of re-creating 'configure'?
--- Vladimir
--
Vladimir G. Ivanovic
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
9:39 a.m.
Vladimir G. Ivanovic writes:
configure: WARNING: Unrecognized options: --with-gcc,
--with-cflags,
--with-cflags-debugging, --with-xft, --with-wmcommand, --with-mule,
--with-memory-usage-stats
These warnings mean nothing except that autoconf is a piece of junk.
Specifically, it doesn't like the way we've defined those options, I'm
not sure why, and it has decided to complain about them.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
5907
days inactive
5910
days old
7 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Stephen J. Turnbull -
Steve Youngs -
The XEmacs Package Smoketest -
Vladimir G. Ivanovic