CI scallywag setup/cygport/autoconf missing autoconf-archive pkg

[Brian Inglis]

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.]