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

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

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.]