CI scallywag setup/cygport/autoconf missing autoconf-archive pkg
Brian Inglis
Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.ab.ca
Sun Oct 3 19:14:38 GMT 2021
On 2021-10-02 10:35, Brian Inglis wrote:
> On 2021-10-02 08:13, Ken Brown via Cygwin-apps wrote:
>> On 10/2/2021 1:48 AM, Brian Inglis wrote:
>>> On 2021-10-01 22:15, Achim Gratz wrote:
>>>> Brian Inglis writes:
>>>>> As autoconf requires: autoconf2.1 autoconf2.5 bash sed, I believe that
>>>>> would be the more appropriate place for an autoconf-archive
>>>>> requirement, otherwise cygport would have to require it, which is not
>>>>> so obvious.
>>>>
>>>> No. If a build needs autoconf-archive then require it there. The whole
>>>> point of having things in separate packages is that you do not have to
>>>> install things you don't need. Neither autottols nor cygport require
>>>> this package in any way.
>>>
>>> See response to Yaakov: the problem is it's just a given in the build
>>> systems of the packages that use it,
>>
>> I acknowledge that it's easy to give advice with hindsight, but here
>> are two ways you might have discovered that you needed
>> autoconf-archive as a build requirement for your package.
>>
>> 1. You could have checked the Fedora .spec file for the package. In
>> my experience, Fedora maintainers are generally very good at listing
>> build requirements. I don't think you've said what package you're
>> talking about, so I can't check whether that would have helped in this
>> case.
>
> I have clued in over time and grab package .spec and Debian .dsc,
> debian/rules and any other distro files with useful content, while I am
> looking at a package.
> As I said, it appears to be assumed it's in the infrastructure, I can't
> find any other spec linkages to autoconf-archive, and get similar
> results in Debian and OpenSuSE Build System:
>
> wget/wget.spec:BuildRequires: gnutls-devel, pkgconfig, texinfo, gettext,
> autoconf, libidn2-devel, libuuid-devel, perl-podlators, libpsl-devel,
> libmetalink-devel, gpgme-devel, gcc, zlib-devel
>
> If anyone can suggest how I can trace the Fedora web to find those, or
> other distros, I would be grateful.
>
>> 2. An internet search for AX_CODE_COVERAGE would have immediately told
>> you that it's in autoconf-archive.
>
> It wasn't that apparent as I use DDG and no longer use Google! ;^>
>
>> You also mentioned the gnulib bug you ran into while packaging bison.
>> It's unfortunate that you lost so much time on this, but you handled
>> it exactly right. You reported it upstream, they passed it on to
>> gnulib, and it got fixed.
>>
>> We all appreciate the effort you've been making to adopt orphaned
>> packages. I think you've just run into a string of bad luck that has
>> caused this to be very time consuming.
>
> I'm not so worried about my time as the implications for other
> maintainers who may not, and getting more on board, if there is a large
> impedance between our and other build system infrastructure.
I've found that gnome-common requires autoconf-archive as it builds on
it (from f21+, as does mate-common on recent Debian and Fedora
main/rawhide but not epel7 nor Cygwin) so that may be why Linux build
environments always have it available.
--
Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
This email may be disturbing to some readers as it contains
too much technical detail. Reader discretion is advised.
[Data in binary units and prefixes, physical quantities in SI.]
More information about the Cygwin-apps
mailing list