On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 09:12:37AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > While the waf behavour does sound quite awful, is this really any
> > different than the current behaviour of the autotools? The "configure"
> > script is an unreadable mess generated by the expansion of macros in the
> > autotools packages; it too bears little relation to the original macros.
> But all the original macros are actually present and shipped with the
> source (or are obtained from some version of the Autoconf, Automake, and
> Libtool packages),
You must mean "all the original macros should be actually present" because
it is not always true, as you seem to imply below.

> and I think that failure to regenerate the configure
> machinery with current Autotools would constitute a bug. The difference
> with waf is that the sources aren't included and aren't easily obtainable
> via another package in Debian one can build-depend on.
>
> I'm converting all of my packages to use dh-autoreconf so that I can
> detect such bugs.
>

--
WBR, wRAR

Andrey Rahmatullin <wrar@wrar.name> writes:
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 09:12:37AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:

>>> While the waf behavour does sound quite awful, is this really any
>>> different than the current behaviour of the autotools? The
>>> "configure" script is an unreadable mess generated by the expansion of
>>> macros in the autotools packages; it too bears little relation to the
>>> original macros.

>> But all the original macros are actually present and shipped with the
>> source (or are obtained from some version of the Autoconf, Automake,
>> and Libtool packages),

> You must mean "all the original macros should be actually present"
> because it is not always true, as you seem to imply below.

Er, well, no, I did actually mean what I said. However, I suppose it's
possible that some upstreams are generating configure scripts from local
macros in /usr/share/aclocal that they don't ship with the package.
Autoconf actually makes it rather hard to do that (you have to go to some
extra effort to do the wrong thing), but I suppose it's theoretically
possible.

I've not run into it personally in years, though, and the few times that I
did run into it, the missing macros were ones that were shipped by other
Debian packages (like pkg-config).

--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 87vcni1qp1.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu">http://lists.debian.org/87vcni1qp1.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu

On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 09:47:06AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >>> While the waf behavour does sound quite awful, is this really any
> >>> different than the current behaviour of the autotools? The
> >>> "configure" script is an unreadable mess generated by the expansion of
> >>> macros in the autotools packages; it too bears little relation to the
> >>> original macros.
> >> But all the original macros are actually present and shipped with the
> >> source (or are obtained from some version of the Autoconf, Automake,
> >> and Libtool packages),
> > You must mean "all the original macros should be actually present"
> > because it is not always true, as you seem to imply below.
> Er, well, no, I did actually mean what I said. However, I suppose it's
> possible that some upstreams are generating configure scripts from local
> macros in /usr/share/aclocal that they don't ship with the package.
They may omit macros from the tarball because of some other things
(starting with a bad tarball generation script). I think I've seen that in
one package but that was long ago and I don't remember details.

--
WBR, wRAR

Alexander Reichle-Schmehl writes ("Re: Doesn't contain source for waf binary code"):
> However, regarding that specific point: waf once was packaged in
> Debian. See <20100227195857.07540195@utumno>
> (http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2010/02/msg00714.html) for details
> about the removal.

Urgh. Thanks for the pointer.

Ian.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20273.27184.988301.725259@chiark.greenend.org.uk"> http://lists.debian.org/20273.27184.988301.725259@chiark.greenend.org.uk

On 08/02/2012 02:05, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 09:47:06AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>>>> While the waf behavour does sound quite awful, is this really any
>>>>> different than the current behaviour of the autotools? The
>>>>> "configure" script is an unreadable mess generated by the expansion of
>>>>> macros in the autotools packages; it too bears little relation to the
>>>>> original macros.
>>>> But all the original macros are actually present and shipped with the
>>>> source (or are obtained from some version of the Autoconf, Automake,
>>>> and Libtool packages),
>>> You must mean "all the original macros should be actually present"
>>> because it is not always true, as you seem to imply below.
>> Er, well, no, I did actually mean what I said. However, I suppose it's
>> possible that some upstreams are generating configure scripts from local
>> macros in /usr/share/aclocal that they don't ship with the package.
> They may omit macros from the tarball because of some other things
> (starting with a bad tarball generation script). I think I've seen that in
> one package but that was long ago and I don't remember details.

Afaik autoconf includes aclocal.m4 in the dist tarball by default (I'm not sure
if you can actually disable that), which includes all out-of-tree macros.

However, having the macro in aclocal.m4 does not automagically grant you the
ability to autoreconf, as aclocal.m4 itself is regenerated then.

--
Kind regards,
Loong Jin

On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 13:16:01 +0000
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

> Michael Biebl writes ("Doesn't contain source for waf binary code"):
> > as this issue affects quite a few packages, I'd like to bring this
> > up for wider discussion.
> >
> > The issue basically is, that the waf build system uses a python
> > script, which embeds a bz2 tarball containing further python
> > sources. Those are unpacked to .waf-*/ when the waf script is
> > executed. More details can be found at [1].

> * It is possible that some upstream "source" packages contain "waf"
> scripts which were generated from modified versions of waf.git. In
> this case we may discover that those packages cannot be built with
> publicly available versions of waf.git.

I don't know anything about waf not mentioned in this thread, but
would it be possible to patch the package to work with a packaged waf
instead?
thanks,
kk


--
Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK7FOSS)
http://www.kgoetz.id.au
No, I won't join your social networking group

On Tue, 07 Feb 2012, Roger Leigh wrote:
> While the waf behavour does sound quite awful, is this really
> any different than the current behaviour of the autotools? The

That is one of the reasons why you are supposed to retool on distro builds.
Retooling the entire build system as part of the "rebuild all autogenerated
files" best practice is not news in Debian.

--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120208002356.GD13296@khazad-dum.debian.net">http://lists.debian.org/20120208002356.GD13296@khazad-dum.debian.net

Do we have any idea how many packages in Debian currently use waf?

Is waf growing in popularity?

After reading [1] I get the impression it should die and we should
try to hasten that outcome.


[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2010/02/msg00714.html

--
Jon Dowland


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120208080237.GD29150@debian">http://lists.debian.org/20120208080237.GD29150@debian

Hi!

Am 08.02.2012 09:02, schrieb Jon Dowland:
> Do we have any idea how many packages in Debian currently use waf?

Well, we opened about 55 bugs see
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=waf-unpack;users=ftpmaster@debian.org

(The list was created by searching for "waf" files in all source packages.)

However, in some package it just seems to have been leftover, and
upstream already changed to an other build system.

> Is waf growing in popularity?

I have no idea, but I'm not really sure if it's a good idea to remove
samba either...


Best regards,
Alexander


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4F3244A1.6030107@schmehl.info">http://lists.debian.org/4F3244A1.6030107@schmehl.info