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

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

[Brian Inglis]

Hi folks,

Autotools needs m4 macros in autoreconf-archive to config for gcov and 
other dependencies or build fails with e.g.

"configure.ac:33: error: possibly undefined macro: AX_CODE_COVERAGE
    If this token and others are legitimate, please use m4_pattern_allow.
    See the Autoconf documentation."

CI scallywag setup does not install nor does cygport nor autoconf 
require autoconf-archive so packages have to include in BUILD_REQUIRES.

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.

-- 
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.]

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

[Yaakov Selkowitz]

On Wed, 2021-09-29 at 22:15 -0600, Brian Inglis wrote:
> Hi folks,
> 
> Autotools needs m4 macros in autoreconf-archive to config for gcov and 
> other dependencies or build fails with e.g.
> 
> "configure.ac:33: error: possibly undefined macro: AX_CODE_COVERAGE
>     If this token and others are legitimate, please use m4_pattern_allow.
>     See the Autoconf documentation."
> 
> CI scallywag setup does not install nor does cygport nor autoconf 
> require autoconf-archive so packages have to include in BUILD_REQUIRES.
> 
> 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.

autoconf-archive would be a build requirement of the package whose
configure.ac references the AX_* macro, not of the autotools themselves.

-- 
Yaakov

-- 
Yaakov

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

[Brian Inglis]

On 2021-10-01 15:37, Yaakov Selkowitz via Cygwin-apps wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-09-29 at 22:15 -0600, Brian Inglis wrote:
>> Autotools needs m4 macros in autoreconf-archive to config for gcov and
>> other dependencies or build fails with e.g.
>> "configure.ac:33: error: possibly undefined macro: AX_CODE_COVERAGE
>>      If this token and others are legitimate, please use m4_pattern_allow.
>>      See the Autoconf documentation."
>> CI scallywag setup does not install nor does cygport nor autoconf
>> require autoconf-archive so packages have to include in BUILD_REQUIRES.
>> 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.
> autoconf-archive would be a build requirement of the package whose
> configure.ac references the AX_* macro, not of the autotools themselves.

It appears to be just installed as part of build or development packages 
on upstreams systems, perhaps the GNU Build System, such that they don't 
even mention it as a requirement.

It appears that the newer AX_... macros are defined in autoconf-archive, 
and they are now being used in packages.

I would prefer it be required by autoconf or cygport, as I expect more 
if its macros will be used in the future, especially as more packages 
will require it to build with autotools, but it is not obvious that part 
of the autoconf infrastructure is not automatically installed, nor where 
one should look to find AX_... whatever in a package that is not installed.

I only figured it out because I was looking for issues with autotools 
macros because of issues with gnulib in GNU packages, which I have been 
dealing with recently in three packages, and expect more unless they 
pull in the newer release with the patch applied.
I have posted a general message to the list to watch out for that issue, 
which crashes all programs configured with it.

As the lack of autoconf-archive installed by scallywag CI kills jobs run 
when commits are pushed, I expect this to cause some frustration to 
maintainers, which given lag in package updates with the current 
shortage of people and time, I would like to mitigate likely future 
common issues as much as possible.

-- 
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.]

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

[Achim Gratz]

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.

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.


Regards,
Achim.
-- 
+<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+

Wavetables for the Terratec KOMPLEXER:
http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#KomplexerWaves

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

[Brian Inglis]

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.]

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

[Ken Brown]

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.

2. An internet search for AX_CODE_COVERAGE would have immediately told you that 
it's in autoconf-archive.

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.

Ken

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

[Brian Inglis]

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.

-- 
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.]

Re: 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.]