[Cocci] Request 339055 commented by jengelh (submit devel:tools/coccinelle)

[Cocci] Request 339055 commented by jengelh (submit devel:tools/coccinelle)

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:00:32PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> Visit https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/339055
> 
> Jan Engelhardt wrote in request 339055:
> 
> Why is this even needed? Are changes planned to the implicitly-installed packages in prjconf?

Not sure what you mean. The coccinelel build as of today uses the
concept of bundles and that requires tar to unpack things. Other
than this in the future I don't expect ./configure to be redistributed
but rather ./autogen will be required as with other software projects
to keep history clean, and since autotools is prevalent on build
systems these days anyway.

  Luis

[Cocci] Request 339055 commented by jengelh (submit devel:tools/coccinelle)

[Jan Engelhardt]

On Wednesday 2015-10-14 23:04, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:

>On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:00:32PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> Visit https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/339055
>> 
>> Jan Engelhardt wrote in request 339055:
>> 
>> Why is this even needed? Are changes planned to the implicitly-installed packages in prjconf?
>
>Not sure what you mean. The coccinelel build as of today uses the
>concept of bundles and that requires tar to unpack things.

tar is in the list of packages installed by default on OBS, just like 
gcc. And we don't have BuildRequires: gcc everywhere for that reason.

[Cocci] Request 339055 commented by jengelh (submit devel:tools/coccinelle)

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:12:48PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Wednesday 2015-10-14 23:04, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> 
> >On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:00:32PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> >> Visit https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/339055
> >> 
> >> Jan Engelhardt wrote in request 339055:
> >> 
> >> Why is this even needed? Are changes planned to the implicitly-installed packages in prjconf?
> >
> >Not sure what you mean. The coccinelel build as of today uses the
> >concept of bundles and that requires tar to unpack things.
> 
> tar is in the list of packages installed by default on OBS, just like 
> gcc. And we don't have BuildRequires: gcc everywhere for that reason.

Great, thanks. How about the others?

  Luis

[Cocci] Request 339055 commented by jengelh (submit devel:tools/coccinelle)

[Jan Engelhardt]

On Wednesday 2015-10-14 23:23, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:12:48PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> On Wednesday 2015-10-14 23:04, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> 
>> >On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:00:32PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> >> Visit https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/339055
>> >> 
>> >> Jan Engelhardt wrote in request 339055:
>> >> 
>> >> Why is this even needed? Are changes planned to the implicitly-installed packages in prjconf?
>> >
>> >Not sure what you mean. The coccinelel build as of today uses the
>> >concept of bundles and that requires tar to unpack things.
>> 
>> tar is in the list of packages installed by default on OBS, just like 
>> gcc. And we don't have BuildRequires: gcc everywhere for that reason.
>
>Great, thanks. How about the others?

Since coccinelle.spec does not invoke autoreconf or any of the developer-side
regenration tools, we do not need autoconf/automake/libtool in the .spec
at all.

[Cocci] Request 339055 commented by jengelh (submit devel:tools/coccinelle)

[SF Markus Elfring]

> Since coccinelle.spec does not invoke autoreconf

How does the script "https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/blob/a46bef70162d17cec6b0fc6101d737989f735ee4/autogen"
fit to your view?


> or any of the developer-side regenration tools,

Do you see any more software evolution there?


> we do not need autoconf/automake/libtool in the .spec at all.

Can it occasionally help to make more software dependencies explicit
also in the package specification?

Regards,
Markus

[Cocci] Request 339055 commented by jengelh (submit devel:tools/coccinelle)

[Jan Engelhardt]

On Thursday 2015-10-22 07:23, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
>
>> Since coccinelle.spec does not invoke autoreconf
>
>How does the script "https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/blob/a46bef70162d17cec6b0fc6101d737989f735ee4/autogen"
>fit to your view?

1. Running `aclocal; autoconf` is not enough. I spot a Makefile.am
in the source tree, so you more or less need `autoreconf -fi`
instead in the "autogen" script.

2. My point was that autogen / aclocal / autoconf / etc.
only needs to be run if there is no "configure" script present.
Because there is a configure script in the released tarballs
(at least there was so far), there is no need for coccinelle.spec to run
autogen. And if autogen/aclocal/autoconf/etc. is not run, we do not need to
BuildRequire it.

[Cocci] Request 339055 commented by jengelh (submit devel:tools/coccinelle)

[SF Markus Elfring]

> 1. Running `aclocal; autoconf` is not enough. I spot a Makefile.am
> in the source tree, so you more or less need `autoreconf -fi`
> instead in the "autogen" script.

Are you interested in achieving progress on a topic like
'Collateral evolution around "Automake"'?
https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/issues/41


> 2. My point was that autogen / aclocal / autoconf / etc.
> only needs to be run if there is no "configure" script present.

That is usual.


> Because there is a configure script in the released tarballs
> (at least there was so far),

This might look convenient.


> there is no need for coccinelle.spec to run autogen.

Have you got any concerns for the dependency on such a pregenerated script
together with the discussed distribution package?

Regards,
Markus

[Cocci] Request 339055 commented by jengelh (submit devel:tools/coccinelle)

[Jan Engelhardt]

On Thursday 2015-10-22 12:32, SF Markus Elfring wrote:

>> 1. Running `aclocal; autoconf` is not enough. I spot a Makefile.am
>> in the source tree, so you more or less need `autoreconf -fi`
>> instead in the "autogen" script.
>
>Are you interested in achieving progress on a topic like
>'Collateral evolution around "Automake"'?
>https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/issues/41

Sort of.

>> there is no need for coccinelle.spec to run autogen.
>
>Have you got any concerns for the dependency on such a pregenerated script
>together with the discussed distribution package?

If a tarball ships configure, good for us. If it does not, well, then that
means it will take a few seconds more to build and extra dependencies to be
installed. For a build system, all of that is a no-brainer, but for "users", it
can get annoying when they have to install, for example, half of the
gnome-devel stack just to satisfy an m4 macro in case they have to rerun the
configure generator.

[Cocci] Request 339055 commented by jengelh (submit devel:tools/coccinelle)

[SF Markus Elfring]

>> Are you interested in achieving progress on a topic like
>> 'Collateral evolution around "Automake"'?
>> https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/issues/41
> 
> Sort of.

I am curious if you would like to contribute a bit more help
for the affected design details.


> If a tarball ships configure, good for us. If it does not, well, then that
> means it will take a few seconds more to build and extra dependencies to be
> installed. For a build system, all of that is a no-brainer, but for "users", it
> can get annoying when they have to install, for example, half of the
> gnome-devel stack just to satisfy an m4 macro in case they have to rerun the
> configure generator.

Do you care which software versions were involved in the generation of the
preferred configuration script?

Regards,
Markus

[Cocci] Request 339055 commented by jengelh (submit devel:tools/coccinelle)

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 09:51:17AM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> 
> On Thursday 2015-10-22 07:23, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> >
> >> Since coccinelle.spec does not invoke autoreconf
> >
> >How does the script "https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/blob/a46bef70162d17cec6b0fc6101d737989f735ee4/autogen"
> >fit to your view?
> 
> 1. Running `aclocal; autoconf` is not enough. I spot a Makefile.am
> in the source tree, so you more or less need `autoreconf -fi`
> instead in the "autogen" script.

Then autogen should have this as well, how about:

diff --git a/autogen b/autogen
index a80cb14bab1d..42d6372669b6 100755
--- a/autogen
+++ b/autogen
@@ -4,5 +4,4 @@ if [ "$1" = "--ignore_localversion" ]; then
 else
 	unset MAKE_COCCI_RELEASE
 fi
-aclocal -I setup
-autoconf -Wall
+autoreconf -f -i --warnings=all

> 2. My point was that autogen / aclocal / autoconf / etc.
> only needs to be run if there is no "configure" script present.
> Because there is a configure script in the released tarballs
> (at least there was so far), there is no need for coccinelle.spec to run
> autogen. And if autogen/aclocal/autoconf/etc. is not run, we do not need to
> BuildRequire it.

The latest tarballs do not require it but the next releases will, so configure
will not be carried, so this was more of a heads up note / pro-active patch.

  Luis

[Cocci] Request 339055 commented by jengelh (submit devel:tools/coccinelle)

[Sébastien Hinderer]

Hi,

Sorry for the delayed response.

Luis R. Rodriguez (2015/10/22 15:18 +0200):
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 09:51:17AM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> > 
> > On Thursday 2015-10-22 07:23, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > >
> > >> Since coccinelle.spec does not invoke autoreconf
> > >
> > >How does the script "https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/blob/a46bef70162d17cec6b0fc6101d737989f735ee4/autogen"
> > >fit to your view?
> > 
> > 1. Running `aclocal; autoconf` is not enough. I spot a Makefile.am
> > in the source tree, so you more or less need `autoreconf -fi`
> > instead in the "autogen" script.

Well, the Makefile.am is indeed present but not actually used so are you
really sure the change you suggest is required?

Is there any specific problem you are trying to solve with the current
code?

> > 2. My point was that autogen / aclocal / autoconf / etc.
> > only needs to be run if there is no "configure" script present.
> > Because there is a configure script in the released tarballs
> > (at least there was so far), there is no need for coccinelle.spec to run
> > autogen. And if autogen/aclocal/autoconf/etc. is not run, we do not need to
> > BuildRequire it.
> 
> The latest tarballs do not require it but the next releases will, so configure
> will not be carried, so this was more of a heads up note / pro-active
> patch.

Well, so far my idea was to not provide configure in a public coccinelle
repository but to provide it in tarballs, following an approach which I
believe is common to many open-source projects, i.e. not
version-controlling any generated file but still distribute them in tarballs.

S?bastien.

[Cocci] Request 339055 commented by jengelh (submit devel:tools/coccinelle)

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 04:17:48PM +0100, S?bastien Hinderer wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Sorry for the delayed response.
> 
> Luis R. Rodriguez (2015/10/22 15:18 +0200):
> > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 09:51:17AM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Thursday 2015-10-22 07:23, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Since coccinelle.spec does not invoke autoreconf
> > > >
> > > >How does the script "https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/blob/a46bef70162d17cec6b0fc6101d737989f735ee4/autogen"
> > > >fit to your view?
> > > 
> > > 1. Running `aclocal; autoconf` is not enough. I spot a Makefile.am
> > > in the source tree, so you more or less need `autoreconf -fi`
> > > instead in the "autogen" script.
> 
> Well, the Makefile.am is indeed present but not actually used so are you
> really sure the change you suggest is required?
> 
> Is there any specific problem you are trying to solve with the current
> code?

Note: this was addressed to Markus.

> > > 2. My point was that autogen / aclocal / autoconf / etc.
> > > only needs to be run if there is no "configure" script present.
> > > Because there is a configure script in the released tarballs
> > > (at least there was so far), there is no need for coccinelle.spec to run
> > > autogen. And if autogen/aclocal/autoconf/etc. is not run, we do not need to
> > > BuildRequire it.
> > 
> > The latest tarballs do not require it but the next releases will, so configure
> > will not be carried, so this was more of a heads up note / pro-active
> > patch.
> 
> Well, so far my idea was to not provide configure in a public coccinelle
> repository but to provide it in tarballs, following an approach which I
> believe is common to many open-source projects, i.e. not
> version-controlling any generated file but still distribute them in tarballs.

Sounds good.

  Luis