[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Future plans for Autotools
From: |
Richard Purdie |
Subject: |
Re: Future plans for Autotools |
Date: |
Fri, 29 Jan 2021 12:24:10 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Evolution 3.38.1-1 |
On Wed, 2021-01-27 at 18:26 +0000, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jan 2021, Richard Purdie wrote:
>
> > Thanks, I hadn't realised. The only two recipes we never autoreconf are
> > binutils and gcc, instead we do some painful things to handle libtool
> > issues so we get our libtool tweaks. It sounds like we should revisit
> > that. I guess we were so used to not being about to do it we never
> > looked back at it recently.
> >
> > Does that mean those projects will autoreconf more regularly if there
> > are autotools releases?
>
> I'm likely to follow binutils+gdb in making autoconf/automake updates in
> GCC.
Fair enough, I'll have to look into what our options are. I think the
libtool mismatch issues are likely why we've not looked into this
autoreconf. I know we have problems with libtool in both binutils and
gcc which mean we have heavy patches for that.
> libtool updates are trickier, and probably more relevant to GCC than to
> binutils+gdb. GCC is using a 2009 version of libtool (reportedly commit
> 2c9c38d8a12eb0a2ce7fe9c3862523026c3d5622) with lots of local patches, some
> of which may not be upstream (libtool upstream isn't very active), and
> different interpretations of --with-sysroot mean that updating libtool in
> GCC would also require reverting libtool commit
> 3334f7ed5851ef1e96b052f2984c4acdbf39e20c in the new version of the libtool
> files used in GCC (in addition to making sure that any other
> not-yet-upstream local libtool patches are preserved).
I think this is the key part of the problem, we carry a patch to rename
the option in libtool due to the conflicts the libtool naming caused.
We do have a queue of libtool patches, I'd love to see a way of
reconciling the sysroot option issue with libtool upstream. Its a
chicken and egg problem since we're less likely to spend time on
sending the patches if we aren't likely to see them at least get into
source control. I guess I'm diverging for the autoconf list now though!
Cheers,
Richard
- Re: Future plans for Autotools, (continued)
Re: Future plans for Autotools, Nick Bowler, 2021/01/22
Re: Future plans for Autotools, Richard Purdie, 2021/01/26
Re: Future plans for Autotools, Karl Berry, 2021/01/27