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, 04:22 PM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default FESCo Proposal for blocking older version of autoconf & automake

On Mon, 2008-05-05 at 21:45 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-05-05 at 11:57 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2008-05-05 at 17:48 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >>
> >>> This step is way over due. It also will teach maintainers not run the
> >>> autotools while building.
> >> Thats your personal preference.
> >
> > Your liberty to think this.
>
> Otherwise, it would be useful to have packaging guidelines officially on
> to the recommended method to deal with this.
The key to avoid autotool compatibility issues is simple: Do not
generate autotool generated files while building.
Generate them off-line.

Ralf


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-05-2008, 07:37 PM
Jeroen van Meeuwen
 
Default FESCo Proposal for blocking older version of autoconf & automake

Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
[...snip...]


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.



*cough* HackFest *cough*

-Jeroen

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-05-2008, 09:18 PM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default FESCo Proposal for blocking older version of autoconf & automake

Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:

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.


+1

OTOH, if Karsten doesn't want to maintain all of the compat auto*
packages anymore he should certainly feel free to orphan them and let
people who need them take them over.


-Toshio

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-05-2008, 10:34 PM
"Richard W.M. Jones"
 
Default FESCo Proposal for blocking older version of autoconf & automake

On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 06:10:50PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> How do you call projects who stick with antiquated tools and ignore many
> years of development? I call them poorly maintained.

'Mature'? Actually while I personally tend to use whatever version of
autoconf is installed for my own stuff, I have found a couple of
upstream projects that use autoconf 2.13 and are opposed to upgrading,
so that is going to be a problem. Unfortunately I can't find the
packages in question at the moment, but I'll try to dig them up
tomorrow when I'm reunited with my laptop.

Rich.

--
Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones
virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines. Tiny program with many
powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk stats, logging, etc.
http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-top

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

2008/5/5 Brian Pepple <bpepple@fedoraproject.org>:
> I received the following proposal from Karsten Hopp, which he would like
> FESCo to make a decision on during this week's meeting (2008-05-08).
> I'm forwarding it to the list, so that people can weigh-in on it.
>
> ---
>
> We are currently shipping an insane number of compatibility autofoo
> packages which haven't seen any upstream maintenance for many years:
>
> autoconf213-2.13-18.fc8.noarch.rpm (9 years)
> automake14-1.4p6-15.fc7.noarch.rpm (6 years)
> automake15-1.5-23.noarch.rpm (7 years)
> automake16-1.6.3-14.noarch.rpm (6 years)
> automake17-1.7.9-11.noarch.rpm (4 1/2 years)
>
> PROPOSAL: I'd like to keep just the following packages and would like to
> have release engineering to block the older packages from Rawhide:
> autoconf-2.61-10.fc9.noarch.rpm
> automake-1.10.1-2.noarch.rpm
>
> This is the complete list of rawhide packages requiring those ancient
> autofoo packages, it is rather short and it should be doable to convert
> those packages to current autofoo:
>
> automake14 ax25-apps-0.0.6-2.fc9.src.rpm
> automake14 gdk-pixbuf-0.22.0-36.fc9.src.rpm
> automake14 glib-1.2.10-29.fc9.src.rpm
> automake14 gtk+-1.2.10-61.fc9.src.rpm
> automake14 sgml-common-0.6.3-23.fc9.src.rpm
> automake14 WindowMaker-0.92.0-17.fc9.src.rpm
>
> automake15 nss_db-2.2-40.fc9.src.rpm
>
> automake16 kyum-0.7.5-11.fc9.src.rpm
> automake16 qalculate-kde-0.9.6-5.fc9.src.rpm
> automake16 sinjdoc-0.5-6.fc9.src.rpm
>
> automake17 cegui-0.5.0b-7.fc9.src.rpm
> automake17 ekg2-0.1.1-4.fc9.src.rpm
> automake17 gtk2-2.12.9-5.fc9.src.rpm
> automake17 nautilus-open-terminal-0.9-2.fc9.src.rpm
>
> autoconf213 esc-1.0.1-9.fc9.src.rpm
> autoconf213 glib-1.2.10-29.fc9.src.rpm
> autoconf213 gtk+-1.2.10-61.fc9.src.rpm
> autoconf213 pam_smb-1.1.7-8.2.2.src.rpm
> autoconf213 xdvik-22.84.13-17.fc9.src.rpm
>
> Maintainers are encouraged to switch to more recent releases of the
> autoconf tools and/or work with upstream to get this done. They also
> should make sure if it is really necessary to run p.e. automake at all
> during the build process.
>
> Later,
> /B
> --
> Brian Pepple <bpepple@fedoraproject.org>
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BrianPepple
> gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E
> BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>

It would really be nice to encourage people to fix the cruft.
backwards compat packages (workarounds) usually just slow down the
process of getting that fixed properly. sure one can question the
priority of that change but i am also the opinion that it would be
something that could be cleaned up in a single iteration.

just my opinion,
Rudolf Kastl

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-06-2008, 12:17 AM
Wes Hardaker
 
Default FESCo Proposal for blocking older version of autoconf & automake

>>>>> On Mon, 05 May 2008 10:59:08 -0400, Brian Pepple <bpepple@fedoraproject.org> said:

BP> PROPOSAL: I'd like to keep just the following packages and would like to
BP> have release engineering to block the older packages from Rawhide:
BP> autoconf-2.61-10.fc9.noarch.rpm
BP> automake-1.10.1-2.noarch.rpm

I don't think this is helpful to developers. Those packages aren't just
used by Fedora packaging developers. They're used by anyone anywhere
who needs to maintain a build system. Different software components
require older versions of autoconf to successfully work on. Sad, but
very true. I have multiple installations of autoconf in place and I use
them all. Not because I want to, but because the base package I'm
working on doesn't work with newer versions (this is particularly true
from autoconf < 2.5 to anything > 2.5 and also true for 2.58 > 2.59 or
beyond). Fixing a configure.in file to make it portable is often a ton
of work for a big package. If it wasn't, XEmacs would have updated it's
configure.in file from 2.13 to something more recent a long long time
ago ;-)
--
"In the bathtub of history the truth is harder to hold than the soap,
and much more difficult to find." -- Terry Pratchett

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-06-2008, 12:36 AM
Matthias Clasen
 
Default FESCo Proposal for blocking older version of autoconf & automake

On Mon, 2008-05-05 at 18:22 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-05-05 at 21:45 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2008-05-05 at 11:57 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> > >> On Mon, 2008-05-05 at 17:48 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> This step is way over due. It also will teach maintainers not run the
> > >>> autotools while building.
> > >> Thats your personal preference.
> > >
> > > Your liberty to think this.
> >
> > Otherwise, it would be useful to have packaging guidelines officially on
> > to the recommended method to deal with this.
> The key to avoid autotool compatibility issues is simple: Do not
> generate autotool generated files while building.
> Generate them off-line.

...which won't be easy if the autotool versions you need to generate
them are kicked out.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-06-2008, 12:52 AM
Josh Boyer
 
Default FESCo Proposal for blocking older version of autoconf & automake

On Mon, 05 May 2008 16:43:39 -0400
Simo Sorce <ssorce@redhat.com> wrote:

>
> On Mon, 2008-05-05 at 16:40 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-05-05 at 11:14 -0700, Alan wrote:
> > > 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.)
> >
> > FWIW, my Lenovo T60 (x86_64) comes back after suspend in X, and has for
> > six suspend/resumes in a row, running F-9.
>
> My T60 works perfectly in F8 wrt suspend (Intel graphics)
>
> (Although as the keyboard is an external USB one, the WAKE button does
> not work, I have to press the power button :-)

None of this has anything to do with the thread. Please just report
bugs instead.

josh

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-06-2008, 03:28 AM
Casey Dahlin
 
Default FESCo Proposal for blocking older version of autoconf & automake

Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:

"RC" == Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@freenet.de> writes:



RC> This is a non-issue if upstream uses the autotools properly,
RC> i.e. is shipping pre-generated files and doesn't run them while
RC> building.

The upstream developers still need to have autoconf213 in order to
actually develop the package, though. Hence they still need to get
that old version of the package from somewhere. I see no reason why
Fedora shouldn't simply provide it for them.

- J<




In light of this, I have a proposal:

We fix our specs to not use autoconf, and remove the old versions as
stated, but we keep them around, perhaps in another branch in CVS or
simply removed from the F10 tag. Then we just wait for complaints. If
someone comes in and says "I was actively using that" we can just slap
it back in. After one release cycle we can flush the rest.


--CJD

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-06-2008, 03:38 AM
Matthias Clasen
 
Default FESCo Proposal for blocking older version of autoconf & automake

On Mon, 2008-05-05 at 23:28 -0400, Casey Dahlin wrote:

> In light of this, I have a proposal:
>
> We fix our specs to not use autoconf, and remove the old versions as
> stated, but we keep them around, perhaps in another branch in CVS or
> simply removed from the F10 tag. Then we just wait for complaints. If
> someone comes in and says "I was actively using that" we can just slap
> it back in. After one release cycle we can flush the rest.
>

And we do all this work because we have nothing better to do ?
Whats the gain, again ?

--
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 07:16 PM.

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