Mo DeJong wrote:
>On 3 Jul 2001, Jon Trowbridge wrote:
>>* The patch breaks building with libtool 1.3.5.
>>* I used autoconf 2.13; autoconf 2.50 won't work. (I've had problems
>> with 2.50 with other packages as well.)
>This seems like a good time to talk about autoconf 2.50.
>This new release of autoconf fixes a huge number of
>problems and it finally makes cross compiling workable.
>While using the new autoconf has its benefits, there are
>also some downsides. People will complain and complain
>about the fact that they can no longer use autoconf 2.13
>once things have been upgraded to autoconf 2.50. It
>is important to "fight the urge" to make the build
>system work with multiple versions of the build tools.
>It seems doable at first, but it ends up causing no
>end of trouble since it introduces yet another variable
>that needs to be accounted for. Someone will come along
>and file a bug report like "This thing is broken" and
>after a lot of wasted effort it will be tracked down
>to a diff between autoconf 2.50 and 2.13.
This worries me; see below.
>To avoid all that, I suggest we add the following to
>the top of subversion's configure.in.
>The main thing standing in the way of this is the fact
>that anyone wanting to build subversion would need to
>download and install autoconf 2.50. That is a valid
>issue, but it is one that we should solve another way.
>I suggest that instead of forcing folks to run ./autogen.sh
>before running, the autoconf generated files (like ./configure)
>should be stored in the CVS. That may seem like blasphemy
>to some, but there are good reasons for it.
I'd be willing to try this. GCC does this, and it seems to work. Of
course, the catch here is that GCC happens to be a ling-living project
with literally hordes of users and developers that use CVS or snapshots
all the time. Subversion isn't quite in that league yet.
>For one thing, anyone can build the tree after a checkout.
>Since there is no need to have autoconf and libtool installed,
>folks will not complain about needing to upgrade to the new
>autoconf. Folks that want to make changes to the build scripts
>will need to upgrade, but there will only be a few of these folks.
>Putting the ./configure script in the CVS makes it easy to pull
>down a build-able tree from 6 months ago.
This is indeed a very good argument, but it's unrelated to whether we
use autoconf 2.13 or 2.50.
>This tree will not
>depend on your locally installed (and possibly locally modified)
>tools in any way, so it is easy to reproduce previous results
>without worry that installed tools have an effect on the results.
>What do folks think? This is both a technical and a political
>question since every package that subversion depends on will
>also need to be upgraded before we really see the benefits
>of autoconf 2.50. I am willing to do much of the work, but
>before the way comes the will.
I'm worried about one thing: I work on other projects besides Subversion
every now and then. I can't expect all of these projects to accept
upgrading to autoconf 2.50, but you say it's inherently incompatible
with 2.13. What do I do then? Have two copies of the tools installed,
and switch betweent them with $PATH magic? I'd like to avoid that if
there's another way.
home: <brane_at_xbc.nu> http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
work: <branko.cibej_at_hermes.si> http://www.hermes-softlab.com/
ACM: <brane_at_acm.org> http://www.acm.org/
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:32 2006