Re: [Xenomai] xenomai-3/next is out of sync with regards to automake/autoconf...

[Gilles Chanteperdrix <gilles.chanteperdrix@xenomai.org>]

On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 05:09:55PM +0100, Anders Blomdell wrote:
> On 2014-12-10 09:35, Anders Blomdell wrote:
> > On 2014-12-09 20:23, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> >> On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 06:25:50PM +0100, Anders Blomdell wrote:
> >>> On 2014-12-09 16:33, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 04:32:10PM +0100, Anders Blomdell wrote:
> >>>>> On 2014-12-09 16:26, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> >>>>>> On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 04:19:49PM +0100, Anders Blomdell wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 2014-12-09 13:43, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 12:47:24PM +0100, Anders Blomdell wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> ...which leads to rtnet utils not being properly built. I think
> >>>>>>>>> the following is needed:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> autoconf
> >>>>>>>>> automake
> >>>>>>>>> git add configure utils/Makefile.in utils/net/Makefile.in
> >>>>>>>>> git commit
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Oops. My fault. I did not commit the changes, because I do not have
> >>>>>>>> the same versions of the autotools as Philippe, so the commit would
> >>>>>>>> have changed all files (and at the time, I even had to comment out
> >>>>>>>> some code in configure.ac to get my autotools to work, but this
> >>>>>>>> issue has been resolved since then). But I forgot to tell Philippe
> >>>>>>>> to bootstrap.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Note that if you do not want to think about what commands you should
> >>>>>>>> run, you should use autoreconf. autoreconf is the reason why the
> >>>>>>>> "bootstrap" script was removed.
> >>>>>>> Figured that out after I sent the mail :-)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I wonder if as long as Xenomai 3 is in its development stage, it
> >>>>>>>> would not make sense to remove the autotools file from the
> >>>>>>>> repository and ask the users who want to use the repository to run
> >>>>>>>> autoreconf before compiling. I do not know if it will seem
> >>>>>>>> acceptable to those who work from the repository.
> >>>>>>> Make total sense to me, would be nice with a command that does 
> >>>>>>> something like (to simplify packaging):
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> # XENO=$(git describe --tags | sed -e 's/v/xenomai-/') 
> >>>>>>> # git archive --prefix $XENO/ HEAD -o $XENO.tar
> >>>>>>> # tar -rf $XENO.tar all autoreconfed files
> >>>>>>> # xz $XENO.tar
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What is wrong with the packages generated by cgit?
> >>>>> Probably nothing, except that they (probably) don't contain
> >>>>> the files generated by autoreconf, I can of course put that into
> >>>>> the packaging scripts (rpm spec files).
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, if you can. I mean, a lot of build system are doing that
> >>>> already anyway.
> >>> OK, sorry for the noise...
> >>
> >> Actually, that was an answer to the question I asked: do users prefer
> >> to have the generated files in the git, and your answer is yes.
> > May I retract that answer to a no?, having autogenerated that are out of
> > sync is far worse then having to make an occasional autoreconf. I have
> > adjusted my buildfiles to reflect this new (?) opinion.
> 
> And now having problems on fedora21, probaly due to newer automake...
> 
> # autoreconf ; automake --version ; autoreconf --version

autoreconf -fi, to avoid problems with mixed file versions.

-- 
					    Gilles.