From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from omta001.cacentral1.a.cloudfilter.net (omta001.cacentral1.a.cloudfilter.net [3.97.99.32]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C31F3858D3C for ; Sun, 3 Oct 2021 19:14:39 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 0C31F3858D3C Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=SystematicSw.ab.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=systematicsw.ab.ca Received: from shw-obgw-4001a.ext.cloudfilter.net ([10.228.9.142]) by cmsmtp with ESMTP id X3gumsqE2czbLX6wZmwLSF; Sun, 03 Oct 2021 19:14:39 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.105] ([68.147.0.90]) by cmsmtp with ESMTP id X6wZmENS6U9pxX6wZm729f; Sun, 03 Oct 2021 19:14:39 +0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.4 cv=Bbi7bph2 c=1 sm=1 tr=0 ts=615a011f a=T+ovY1NZ+FAi/xYICV7Bgg==:117 a=T+ovY1NZ+FAi/xYICV7Bgg==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=J_zVgxCyAK8YZBADdx8A:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 Reply-To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com References: <9b1ea563-f5c0-04f2-d117-6f792b6cdb94@SystematicSw.ab.ca> <87tui0jc4x.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <66c249a2-debb-c0a0-6633-7f1d4e4ad1f1@SystematicSw.ab.ca> <3701d193-3f79-b78d-4a6a-29a799e00e25@cornell.edu> From: Brian Inglis Organization: Systematic Software Subject: Re: CI scallywag setup/cygport/autoconf missing autoconf-archive pkg Message-ID: <7412a125-2781-ea4a-961f-97d1ccbea9d9@SystematicSw.ab.ca> Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2021 13:14:38 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-CA Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4xfBkRAY1X1kX2msapHurTFpgEGiQM6sP1XycI8e8IynHBJv5pgWXAtbHNX/8IucLgp4XT4+PnFFvkiY2jl+NbfrRXjNoJW3CnOFGVhDBlQsc+X8nw1VL2 XjbJg3CK1APkP+5sAX/bBEIpriCGYhleWsNsab2Uwn6AkJAoXsvlw8K4viST7YZ9xocRic4CtgdjC/n9CBVwnSFbrKXd7wDe1pc= X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1160.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_BARRACUDACENTRAL, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NONE, TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Cygwin package maintainer discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2021 19:14:41 -0000 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.]