From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [IPv6:2001:67c:2178:6::1c]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65A493858424 for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2022 14:58:46 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 65A493858424 Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4239229F9; Thu, 1 Sep 2022 14:58:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B9D713A79; Thu, 1 Sep 2022 14:58:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id rnPUIKXIEGOlawAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Thu, 01 Sep 2022 14:58:45 +0000 Message-ID: <157567c8-3042-bcf9-f38f-3f983af79c28@suse.de> Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2022 16:58:45 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.12.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH][gdb/build] Add gdb/contrib/makeinfo-dummy.sh Content-Language: en-US To: Simon Marchi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20220901095108.GA29248@delia> <095e64ca-4595-188a-c28f-70080b0133b5@simark.ca> From: Tom de Vries In-Reply-To: <095e64ca-4595-188a-c28f-70080b0133b5@simark.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2022 14:58:47 -0000 On 9/1/22 16:43, Simon Marchi wrote: > On 9/1/22 05:51, Tom de Vries via Gdb-patches wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Currently, we cannot build gdb without makeinfo installed. >> >> It would be convenient to work around this by using the configure flag >> MAKEINFO=/usr/bin/true or some such, but that doesn't work because top-level >> configure requires a makeinfo of at least version 4.7, and that version check >> fails for /usr/bin/true, so we end up with MAKEINFO=missing instead. >> >> Work around this by adding a script gdb/contrib/makeinfo-dummy.sh that can be >> used instead, like so: >> ... >> $ ./src/configure MAKEINFO=$src/gdb/contrib/makeinfo-dummy.sh >> ... >> >> The script merely prints the version string that satisfies the version check >> in $src/configure. >> >> Tested on x86_64-linux, with makeinfo removed. >> >> Any comments? > > I wouldn't mind having this if it helps you. This file would probably > belong in $top_level/contrib more than $top_level/gdb/contrib. > Hi Simon, thanks for the review. Agreed, but does that also mean submitting to gcc-patches instead? All the other scripts in /contrib seems to be copies from /contrib. > Just in case that would work for you, in this case I have been using: > > $ ./configure > $ make MAKEINFO=/bin/true > > and that worked fine so far. I see, I suppose that'll work as well, I didn't think of that. I guess it matters more for me to have a documented way of dealing with this, than some specific solution. I ran into this today, knew I worked around this before, but didn't remember how. I'm hoping that having this file in the repo will be something that is easy to find back and use. It would be possible to handle 'true' in the toplevel configure, which would make configure MAKEINFO=true work, but that would have to go past gcc-patches review, and I'm not sure if it's worth the effort to try this, given my suspicion that it will not be accepted. Thanks, - Tom Thanks, - Tom