Re: [RFC] getting rid of the config.guess/sub problem when bootstrapping new ports/systems

> Works for me. But we [distros] do want to mandate autoreconf anyway in the > general case: it is the *only* way to keep upstream honest about the much > hated build system not bitrotting until it decides to blow up right when we > need it for a security update. I know. But there is a lot of ta

Re: distcheck missing files

On Mon, 2013-05-20 at 19:36 -0700, Kip Warner wrote: > Lastly, at the end of my ./configure, I'd like to output a general > summary of parameters the build will be created with. One of those is > whether NLS was enabled. Is there a way to check for $enable_nls without > having to manually define it

Re: distcheck missing files

On Mon, 2013-05-20 at 23:25 +0100, Gavin Smith wrote: > > As far as I know, it isn't being conditionally modified. Here's the > > Makefile.am: > > > > > > You have > > # Manually add these things to distribution package when dist target is run... > EXTRA_DIST = >

Re: [RFC] getting rid of the config.guess/sub problem when bootstrapping new ports/systems

On Mon, 20 May 2013, Pavel Raiskup wrote: > +cc config-patc...@gnu.org, Ben Elliston > > IME, it is much better when any override mechanism make use of > > environment variables. > > Yes, it was mentioned multiple times in this thread already and it was > always forgotten. Please consider this a

Re: distcheck missing files

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Kip Warner wrote: >> Without seeing your actual Makefile.am, I can only guess that perhaps >> you made your EXTRA_DIST conditional? I've been bitten by that in some >> of my own projects, where a conditional EXTRA_DIST impacts what goes >> into the tarball accordi

Re: distcheck missing files

On Mon, 2013-05-20 at 08:44 -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > distcheck is provided by automake, not autoconf; perhaps you'll get > better answers from the automake list or from reading the automake manual. Hey Eric. You're right, perhaps the automake mailing list would have been better. I should also ha

Re: [RFC] getting rid of the config.guess/sub problem when bootstrapping new ports/systems

On 05/20/2013 09:37 AM, Wookey wrote: > +++ Eric Blake [2013-05-20 09:11 -0600]: >> On 05/20/2013 09:01 AM, Paul Wise wrote: >>> On Mon, 2013-05-20 at 08:37 -0600, Eric Blake wrote: >>> I would MUCH rather see us honor a CONFIG_GUESS and CONFIG_SUB environment variable, rather than baking

Re: [RFC] getting rid of the config.guess/sub problem when bootstrapping new ports/systems

+++ Eric Blake [2013-05-20 09:11 -0600]: > On 05/20/2013 09:01 AM, Paul Wise wrote: > > On Mon, 2013-05-20 at 08:37 -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > > > >> I would MUCH rather see us honor a CONFIG_GUESS and CONFIG_SUB > >> environment variable, rather than baking in a PATH search. This topic > >> has

Re: [RFC] getting rid of the config.guess/sub problem when bootstrapping new ports/systems

On Mon, 2013-05-20 at 09:11 -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > On 05/20/2013 09:01 AM, Paul Wise wrote: > > On Mon, 2013-05-20 at 08:37 -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > > > >> I would MUCH rather see us honor a CONFIG_GUESS and CONFIG_SUB > >> environment variable, rather than baking in a PATH search. This top

Re: [RFC] getting rid of the config.guess/sub problem when bootstrapping new ports/systems

On 05/20/2013 09:01 AM, Paul Wise wrote: > On Mon, 2013-05-20 at 08:37 -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > >> I would MUCH rather see us honor a CONFIG_GUESS and CONFIG_SUB >> environment variable, rather than baking in a PATH search. This topic >> has come up in the past, where I made the same request ba

Re: [RFC] getting rid of the config.guess/sub problem when bootstrapping new ports/systems

On Mon, 2013-05-20 at 08:37 -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > I would MUCH rather see us honor a CONFIG_GUESS and CONFIG_SUB > environment variable, rather than baking in a PATH search. This topic > has come up in the past, where I made the same request back then. The patch does both and both are neede

Re: distcheck missing files

On 05/20/2013 01:24 AM, Kip Warner wrote: > Hey list, > > My autotool'd project configure and builds fine. When I run distcheck > target, I notice that some tests fail because it is missing files that > ought to be in 'Tests/'. distcheck is provided by automake, not autoconf; perhaps you'll get

Re: [RFC] getting rid of the config.guess/sub problem when bootstrapping new ports/systems

On 05/18/2013 05:45 AM, Paul Wise wrote: > On Fri, 2013-05-17 at 16:05 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > >> Yes. It would have been really useful if autofoo used whatever is in >> /usr/share/misc, unless there is a config.sub.override or >> config.guess.override file in the source direc

distcheck missing files

Hey list, My autotool'd project configure and builds fine. When I run distcheck target, I notice that some tests fail because it is missing files that ought to be in 'Tests/'. I checked my projects Makefile.am and, consistent with what I took from chapter 14.1 of the manual, I made sure that the