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

[Brian Inglis <Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.ab.ca>]

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, just as is gnulib implicitly, so 
neither are ever mentioned as requirements or components.

You have to trip over the problems, try to find occurences online (which 
is difficult with packages preinstalled with every Linux or GNU 
development setup), dig down to find the problem, dig around to find the 
solution; possibly bounce it off upstream, and reference, pull, or adapt 
their patch which is to their current master; or if it's a Cygwin 
environment issue, fix it in cygport; and request that upstream at least 
mention it in their requirements (for which they may think you, or the 
Cygwin build setup, may have some deficiencies); or mention that they 
include a release of something which is really an ongoing creeping 
unreleased blob: gnulib as of when they last picked it up; or some other 
pet project of theirs which they just embed in their package, as it 
worked on their system, and saves them writing a few new lines of code.

> Off-tangent: cygport has entirely too many dependencies already which we
> can't help with our current package system.  I'd love to have a way for
> these dependencies not to creep into each build.

I'd love to have a way for maintainers not to have to figure out what is 
missing from the Cygwin build system that upstream package developers 
just assume everyone has on their GNU, Linux, Debian, Fedora, OpenSuSE 
or etc. build system! ;^>

I admit I am clueless about autotools, open source development, and 
build systems. I have worked mainly in commercial, corporate 
environments, with teams of a few dozen to a couple of hundred, 
sometimes dozens but usually hundreds of support staff, where they want 
some product fixed or enhanced the next day, provide minimal tools, and 
don't really care how the job gets done, as long as it is cheap and 
soon, or at least within their planned timeframe and budget. (But 
necessarily according to this month's list of approved or required 
architectures, languages, tools, techniques, methodologies, and project 
approaches!) ;^>

And this month has had me spending most of my free time for Cygwin 
tripping over issues of only three packages with mysterious issues never 
encountered or imagined by the upstreams because of their build 
environments; and that makes me pause from contemplating adopting 
others, if each could take up a week of my free time to handle each new 
update.

Maintainers can spent their time chasing issues with Cygwin 
"deficiencies" and digging into the issues, working with upstream 
developers to track down problems, and asking upstream developers to 
document things (shock!) which no other downstream has ever requested; 
or they can release upgraded packages with minimal friction!

But I've always felt putting obstacles that can be easily mitigated in 
the way of getting the good work done with minimal friction is possibly 
not the best approach that any group should take.

[I got an impression that bits of gnulib blobs may be making their way 
into the more formal packaging of autoconf-archive to avoid GNU 
autotools maintainers having to blast in random gnulib replacement blobs 
once in a while and hope that nothing breaks (on their development 
platform at least).]

-- 
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.]