FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 05-05-2008, 04:50 PM
Andrew Haley
 
Default FESCo Proposal for blocking older version of autoconf & automake

Christopher Aillon wrote:
> On 05/05/2008 11:48 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> This step is way over due. It also will teach maintainers not run the
>> autotools while building.
>
> It will also teach maintainers not to use Fedora for doing upstream work.

I agree. This proposal seems to be all pain for no gain.

Andrew.


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-05-2008, 04:53 PM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default FESCo Proposal for blocking older version of autoconf & automake

On Mon, 2008-05-05 at 12:33 -0400, Christopher Aillon wrote:
> On 05/05/2008 12:21 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-05-05 at 12:06 -0400, Christopher Aillon wrote:
> >> On 05/05/2008 11:48 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >>> This step is way over due. It also will teach maintainers not run the
> >>> autotools while building.
> >> It will also teach maintainers not to use Fedora for doing upstream work.
> >
> > How comes you expect each and every tool in Fedora but the autotools to
> > be "current".
> >
> > We have current compilers, current python, current perl, current ...
>
> New compilers affects what's in the package. This affects users.
> New python affects the behavior of the package. This affects users.
> New perl affects the behavior of the package. This affects users.
>
> New autotools affects next to nothing.
The autotools are in the same boat as compilers.

Compiler changes break existing code, autotools changes break existing
code. Both issues affect source code (configure.in/ac, rsp. *.c/*.c++)
and need to be fixed therein.


> Only what configure.in and
> Makefile.in look like. This has zero impact for users.
Both, a compilers user as well as an autotool's users, is the developer.

In an ideal world, a Fedora package maintainer should not have to touch
any of these sources, neither *.c, *.c++ nor *.am or *.ac.

> > You are measuring by double standards - If upstreams were writing proper
> > autotool files and where following upstream autotools as they apparently
> > are doing wrt. other tools, this issues would not exist.
>
> Or if autotools maintainers would stop changing the interface so
> freaking often, this wouldn't be a problem either....
Apparently you don't have much clues about the autotools.

They did not change the "interface so often".

There has been one big interface change: It occurred between
autoconf-2.13 and autoconf-2.50 - Many years ago.

All other changes since then had been minor. In the same time, gcc has
changed incompatibly many more times, not worth mentioning g++/libstdc++
or even c++ standards having changed.

Do you remember the gcc-4.3.0 recompilation campaign in Fedora some
months ago? If people had adjusted their autotool's source files with
the same engagement and submitted their changes upstream, for years ...
this issue would not exist ....

Ralf


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-05-2008, 05:02 PM
"Alan"
 
Default FESCo Proposal for blocking older version of autoconf & automake

>
> On Mon, 2008-05-05 at 17:32 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>> Nah, don't even need those - Perl6 ought to be enough for anyone
>
> Sounds like we're skipping F10, and continue the regularly scheduled
> releases with F12 or so

Soon we will run out of function keys entirely.

I propose that F13 be named either "scroll lock" or "num lock".

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-05-2008, 05:11 PM
Christopher Aillon
 
Default FESCo Proposal for blocking older version of autoconf & automake

On 05/05/2008 12:53 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:

Do you remember the gcc-4.3.0 recompilation campaign in Fedora some
months ago? If people had adjusted their autotool's source files with
the same engagement and submitted their changes upstream, for years ...
this issue would not exist ....


If you want to bring up the gcc 4.3 switch, let's make this easy then:

I personally did a bunch of the gcc 4.3 porting for other people's
packages including patching, rebuilding, etc. How about someone return
the favor and port mine to use new autotools?


Again, the bug is https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=104642

Someone posted a patch to the aforementioned bug which was rejected
because it broke several requirements for Mozilla. If someone fixes
those and gets it committed upstream (I have commit access and can help
do so once it is approved by the build team upstream), I am more than
happy to consider withdrawing my objections to this proposal.


But, the likelihood of it happening for Firefox 3 is remote being that
we're on the cusp of releasing it. And since I doubt the next major
release of Firefox will be out by F10, or even F11, we'll still need to
support autoconf213 for a few more cycles.


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-05-2008, 05:15 PM
Matthew Saltzman
 
Default FESCo Proposal for blocking older version of autoconf & automake

On Mon, 2008-05-05 at 12:33 -0400, Christopher Aillon wrote:

> Or if autotools maintainers would stop changing the interface so
> freaking often, this wouldn't be a problem either....

Wow, for a second there, you seemed to be channeling Les M...

--
Matthew Saltzman

Clemson University Math Sciences
mjs AT clemson DOT edu
http://www.math.clemson.edu/~mjs

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-05-2008, 05:17 PM
"Daniel P. Berrange"
 
Default FESCo Proposal for blocking older version of autoconf & automake

On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 10:02:01AM -0700, Alan wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2008-05-05 at 17:32 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> >> Nah, don't even need those - Perl6 ought to be enough for anyone
> >
> > Sounds like we're skipping F10, and continue the regularly scheduled
> > releases with F12 or so
>
> Soon we will run out of function keys entirely.
>
> I propose that F13 be named either "scroll lock" or "num lock".

The next is SysRq on my keyboard :-)

Dan.
--
|: Red Hat, Engineering, Boston -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-05-2008, 05:31 PM
Simo Sorce
 
Default FESCo Proposal for blocking older version of autoconf & automake

On Mon, 2008-05-05 at 18:17 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 10:02:01AM -0700, Alan wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 2008-05-05 at 17:32 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > >> Nah, don't even need those - Perl6 ought to be enough for anyone
> > >
> > > Sounds like we're skipping F10, and continue the regularly scheduled
> > > releases with F12 or so
> >
> > Soon we will run out of function keys entirely.
> >
> > I propose that F13 be named either "scroll lock" or "num lock".
>
> The next is SysRq on my keyboard :-)

On the laptop i have "Delete", on the external keyboard I have a key
named "Wake" ... then a "Suspend" key that I just discovered is actually
working ... :-)

Simo.

--
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-05-2008, 05:39 PM
seth vidal
 
Default FESCo Proposal for blocking older version of autoconf & automake

On Mon, 2008-05-05 at 12:29 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > How comes you expect each and every tool in Fedora but the autotools to
> > be "current".
>
> That's it!
>
> OK, by Fedora 10 we need to start removing all sorts of not 'current'
> things that aren't up to modern standards.
>
> First, toolkits!
>
> We need to remove gtk1, qt3, and for pete's sake, Xaw and Xaw3d. All
> are obsolete, and users and developers are best served by upgrading
> to more recent toolkits such as Qt4 and GTK2.
>
> The following 258 packages need ported by Fedora 10, or they will
> be removed:

+1

> Next step, languages. (That can follow in a different mail.)
> After all, who needs old stuff like tcl, fortran, or Ada when we have
> python, ruby, and C?

+1

Sadly, you're joking.

But I would love to get rid of the libraries you mentioned before.

-sv


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-05-2008, 06:14 PM
"Alan"
 
Default FESCo Proposal for blocking older version of autoconf & automake

>
> On Mon, 2008-05-05 at 18:17 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>> On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 10:02:01AM -0700, Alan wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, 2008-05-05 at 17:32 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>> > >> Nah, don't even need those - Perl6 ought to be enough for anyone
>> > >
>> > > Sounds like we're skipping F10, and continue the regularly scheduled
>> > > releases with F12 or so
>> >
>> > Soon we will run out of function keys entirely.
>> >
>> > I propose that F13 be named either "scroll lock" or "num lock".
>>
>> The next is SysRq on my keyboard :-)
>
> On the laptop i have "Delete", on the external keyboard I have a key
> named "Wake" ... then a "Suspend" key that I just discovered is actually
> working ... :-)

On my system "wake" is an accurate description of what happens after
"suspend". A funeral with lots of drinking.

I have yet to get X to come back after suspend on an x86_64 system. (Both
laptops have problems with this. Not certain if it just an HP problem or
what.)

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-05-2008, 06:24 PM
Jason L Tibbitts III
 
Default FESCo Proposal for blocking older version of autoconf & automake

I'm not sure I can go along with this. I'm sure we'd all agree that
there's no point in carrying old versions of various pieces of
software for no reason, but we shouldn't drop them all just because
they're not current. Instead we should (periodically) evaluate why we
have those in the distro and decide if we want to continue to have
them. So autoconf213 is needed for firefox development. That's
certainly a valid reason, and it should be documented somewhere (in
the autoconf213 spec, maybe) so that we won't forget next year when
someone again asks why we still have autoconf213 around.

Perhaps we can port a few packages over to a recent automake and get
rid of some of the old versions. It certainly wouldn't be a bad
thing.

- J<

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:10 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org