Autotools

Autotools

[Mark Mitchell]

  1)  Due to ongoing development of the autotools, we recommend using the
      snapshot placed in the file called 20000619-maintainer-tools.tar.gz
      ...

      ftp://ftp.freesoftware.com/pub/sourceware/libstdc++/
        20000619-maintainer-tools.tar.gz

Thanks for the tip.

This tarball contains explicit Cygnus/RedHat references, that are
again going to create confusion.

For example, this tarball contains files named:

  CYGNUS
  ChangeLog.Cygnus

The former is particularly aggravating; it is essentially an ad for
Cygnus.  It is inappropriate to be asking GCC developers to download
these files.

If we really need patches against autoconf, etc., to build V3, then
please get those patches into the current development versions of
those tools.  Then, give a CVS date that we can all use to get the
right version of these tools.  There's a lot of overlap between
autotools/libtool and GCC developers; I'm sure that Alexandre Oliva or
Tom Tromey would be happy to help out integrating these changes.

In the short term, would someone please volunteer to make a new
version of this tarball, that removes these references, and place it
on gcc.gnu.org in /pub/gcc/infrastructure?

--
Mark Mitchell                   mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC               http://www.codesourcery.com

Re: Autotools

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Nov  4, 2000, Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> wrote:

>   CYGNUS
>   ChangeLog.Cygnus

> Then, give a CVS date that we can all use to get the
> right version of these tools.

It is my understanding that that tarball contains the latest stable
releases of these tools plus a few patches here and there.
ChangeLog.Cygnus lists changes that aren't part of the base release.
Of course, it could be renamed to a more neutral name, and the CYGNUS
file might be removed, but I don't think this is such an important
matter, given that Cygnus formally no longer exists :-)

> I'm sure that Alexandre Oliva or Tom Tromey would be happy to help
> out integrating these changes.

I guess most of the changes in there have already been integrated.
The good thing of using that tarball, instead of picking new random
CVS snapshots is that that tarball has been widely tested, whereas CVS
versions of autoconf and automake aren't always usable.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva   Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer                  aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp        oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist    *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me

Re: Autotools

[Mark Mitchell]

>>>>> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> writes:

    Alexandre> patches here and there.  ChangeLog.Cygnus lists changes
    Alexandre> that aren't part of the base release.  Of course, it
    Alexandre> could be renamed to a more neutral name, and the CYGNUS
    Alexandre> file might be removed, but I don't think this is such
    Alexandre> an important matter, given that Cygnus formally no
    Alexandre> longer exists :-)

It *is* important.  That file refers people to an address, phone
number, and so forth that do probably still exist, and that file
explicitly represents this code as coming from Cygnus.  That's
appropriate in a GNUPro release, but it's not appropriate for anything
we're asking GNU developers in general to use.

It shouldn't be hard to make a new tarball without these file, if we
think these are the right files.

    Alexandre> that tarball has been widely tested, whereas CVS
    Alexandre> versions of autoconf and automake aren't always usable.

Agreed.  I was suggesting a particular tag (or date) in CVS to use, as
an alternative to the tarball.  Basically, I am most concerned about
getting any changes necessary to build GCC/V3 into the GNU
repositories for autoconf/automake/etc.; we do not want to be
dependent on changes that are not integrated.  Ideally, we do not want
to be dependent on changes that are not part of an official GNU
release.

--
Mark Mitchell                   mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC               http://www.codesourcery.com

Re: Autotools

[Benjamin Kosnik]

> In the short term, would someone please volunteer to make a new
> version of this tarball, that removes these references, and place it
> on gcc.gnu.org in /pub/gcc/infrastructure?

... special, hacked versions of automake, autoconf, and libtool are no 
longer needed for libstdc++-v3. The latest net releases work correctly now.

This is a non-issue, sorry about the confusion.

-benjamin

Re: Autotools

[Mark Mitchell]

>>>>> "Benjamin" == Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz@redhat.com> writes:

    >> In the short term, would someone please volunteer to make a new
    >> version of this tarball, that removes these references, and
    >> place it on gcc.gnu.org in /pub/gcc/infrastructure?

    Benjamin> ... special, hacked versions of automake, autoconf, and
    Benjamin> libtool are no longer needed for libstdc++-v3. The
    Benjamin> latest net releases work correctly now.

Yay!

Thanks for following up!

--
Mark Mitchell                   mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC               http://www.codesourcery.com

Re: Autotools

[Phil Edwards]

On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 12:25:44PM -0800, Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
> > In the short term, would someone please volunteer to make a new
> > version of this tarball, that removes these references, and place it
> > on gcc.gnu.org in /pub/gcc/infrastructure?
> 
> ... special, hacked versions of automake, autoconf, and libtool are no 
> longer needed for libstdc++-v3. The latest net releases work correctly now.

Really?  Our web pages' installation instructions just got seriously outdated.

If you'll delete the tarball (I can't get on that machine), I'll update
the instructions.


-- 
pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com  |  pme at sources dot redhat dot com
devphil at several other less interesting addresses in various dot domains
The gods do not protect fools.  Fools are protected by more capable fools.

Re: Autotools

[Benjamin Kosnik]

> Really?  Our web pages' installation instructions just got seriously outdated.

Really!

> If you'll delete the tarball (I can't get on that machine), I'll update
> the instructions.

Done.

Re: Autotools

[Phil Edwards]

On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 12:25:44PM -0800, Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
> > In the short term, would someone please volunteer to make a new
> > version of this tarball, that removes these references, and place it
> > on gcc.gnu.org in /pub/gcc/infrastructure?
> 
> ... special, hacked versions of automake, autoconf, and libtool are no 
> longer needed for libstdc++-v3. The latest net releases work correctly now.

Really?  Our web pages' installation instructions just got seriously outdated.

If you'll delete the tarball (I can't get on that machine), I'll update
the instructions.


-- 
pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com  |  pme at sources dot redhat dot com
devphil at several other less interesting addresses in various dot domains
The gods do not protect fools.  Fools are protected by more capable fools.

Re: Autotools

[Mark Mitchell]

>>>>> "Benjamin" == Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz@redhat.com> writes:

    >> In the short term, would someone please volunteer to make a new
    >> version of this tarball, that removes these references, and
    >> place it on gcc.gnu.org in /pub/gcc/infrastructure?

    Benjamin> ... special, hacked versions of automake, autoconf, and
    Benjamin> libtool are no longer needed for libstdc++-v3. The
    Benjamin> latest net releases work correctly now.

Yay!

Thanks for following up!

--
Mark Mitchell                   mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC               http://www.codesourcery.com

Re: Autotools

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Nov  4, 2000, Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> wrote:

>   CYGNUS
>   ChangeLog.Cygnus

> Then, give a CVS date that we can all use to get the
> right version of these tools.

It is my understanding that that tarball contains the latest stable
releases of these tools plus a few patches here and there.
ChangeLog.Cygnus lists changes that aren't part of the base release.
Of course, it could be renamed to a more neutral name, and the CYGNUS
file might be removed, but I don't think this is such an important
matter, given that Cygnus formally no longer exists :-)

> I'm sure that Alexandre Oliva or Tom Tromey would be happy to help
> out integrating these changes.

I guess most of the changes in there have already been integrated.
The good thing of using that tarball, instead of picking new random
CVS snapshots is that that tarball has been widely tested, whereas CVS
versions of autoconf and automake aren't always usable.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva   Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer                  aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp        oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist    *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me

Re: Autotools

[Benjamin Kosnik]

> Really?  Our web pages' installation instructions just got seriously outdated.

Really!

> If you'll delete the tarball (I can't get on that machine), I'll update
> the instructions.

Done.

Re: Autotools

[Mark Mitchell]

>>>>> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> writes:

    Alexandre> patches here and there.  ChangeLog.Cygnus lists changes
    Alexandre> that aren't part of the base release.  Of course, it
    Alexandre> could be renamed to a more neutral name, and the CYGNUS
    Alexandre> file might be removed, but I don't think this is such
    Alexandre> an important matter, given that Cygnus formally no
    Alexandre> longer exists :-)

It *is* important.  That file refers people to an address, phone
number, and so forth that do probably still exist, and that file
explicitly represents this code as coming from Cygnus.  That's
appropriate in a GNUPro release, but it's not appropriate for anything
we're asking GNU developers in general to use.

It shouldn't be hard to make a new tarball without these file, if we
think these are the right files.

    Alexandre> that tarball has been widely tested, whereas CVS
    Alexandre> versions of autoconf and automake aren't always usable.

Agreed.  I was suggesting a particular tag (or date) in CVS to use, as
an alternative to the tarball.  Basically, I am most concerned about
getting any changes necessary to build GCC/V3 into the GNU
repositories for autoconf/automake/etc.; we do not want to be
dependent on changes that are not integrated.  Ideally, we do not want
to be dependent on changes that are not part of an official GNU
release.

--
Mark Mitchell                   mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC               http://www.codesourcery.com

Re: Autotools

[Benjamin Kosnik]

> In the short term, would someone please volunteer to make a new
> version of this tarball, that removes these references, and place it
> on gcc.gnu.org in /pub/gcc/infrastructure?

... special, hacked versions of automake, autoconf, and libtool are no 
longer needed for libstdc++-v3. The latest net releases work correctly now.

This is a non-issue, sorry about the confusion.

-benjamin

Autotools

[Mark Mitchell]

  1)  Due to ongoing development of the autotools, we recommend using the
      snapshot placed in the file called 20000619-maintainer-tools.tar.gz
      ...

      ftp://ftp.freesoftware.com/pub/sourceware/libstdc++/
        20000619-maintainer-tools.tar.gz

Thanks for the tip.

This tarball contains explicit Cygnus/RedHat references, that are
again going to create confusion.

For example, this tarball contains files named:

  CYGNUS
  ChangeLog.Cygnus

The former is particularly aggravating; it is essentially an ad for
Cygnus.  It is inappropriate to be asking GCC developers to download
these files.

If we really need patches against autoconf, etc., to build V3, then
please get those patches into the current development versions of
those tools.  Then, give a CVS date that we can all use to get the
right version of these tools.  There's a lot of overlap between
autotools/libtool and GCC developers; I'm sure that Alexandre Oliva or
Tom Tromey would be happy to help out integrating these changes.

In the short term, would someone please volunteer to make a new
version of this tarball, that removes these references, and place it
on gcc.gnu.org in /pub/gcc/infrastructure?

--
Mark Mitchell                   mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC               http://www.codesourcery.com