Thread: Autotools update
As previously announced I have committed the update to Autoconf 2.59 as well as updates of mkinstalldirs, install-sh, as well as config.guess and config.sub. This shouldn't have any immediate functional impact, except that you can now turn off the autom4te.cache directory (using ~/.autom4te.cfg). Also, someone forgot to update pg_config.h.in after the Kerberos 4 removal patch (I think), so I fixed that, too. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> As previously announced I have committed the update to Autoconf 2.59 as
> well as updates of mkinstalldirs, install-sh, as well as config.guess
> and config.sub.
Are the correct tools also installed on cvs.postgresql.org (ie, will the
right things happen when Marc tries to build a tarball)?
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > Are the correct tools also installed on cvs.postgresql.org (ie, will > the right things happen when Marc tries to build a tarball)? I don't see any autoconf installed there, so the wrong thing would happen either way. :-) But gnu-autoconf-2.59 is in the FreeBSD ports, if it's required. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Are the correct tools also installed on cvs.postgresql.org (ie, will >> the right things happen when Marc tries to build a tarball)? > > I don't see any autoconf installed there, so the wrong thing would > happen either way. :-) But gnu-autoconf-2.59 is in the FreeBSD ports, > if it's required. Pick your version: # ls -lt /usr/local/bin/autoconf* -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 7672 Aug 22 2004 /usr/local/bin/autoconf259 -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 6194 Aug 22 2004 /usr/local/bin/autoconf253 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 5007 Jul 27 2003 /usr/local/bin/autoconf213 But, we only run those when modifying configure.in and such, and not as part of any scripts ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > Pick your version: > > # ls -lt /usr/local/bin/autoconf* > -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 7672 Aug 22 2004 > /usr/local/bin/autoconf259 -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 6194 Aug 22 > 2004 /usr/local/bin/autoconf253 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 5007 Jul > 27 2003 /usr/local/bin/autoconf213 > > But, we only run those when modifying configure.in and such, and not > as part of any scripts ... Btw., the FreeBSD ports have autoconf-2.59, which is a version patched for FreeBSD use, and gnu-autoconf-2.59, which is the unmodified GNU release, useful for folks like us, cooperating across many operating systems. Make sure you use the latter one. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
'k, just checked, and we have the FreeBSD one installed, and always have used in the in the past ... I can install the gnu-* one if you think it will make a difference though, but I don't believe we've had any problem reports on any of our past releases ... ? On Sat, 2 Jul 2005, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Marc G. Fournier wrote: >> Pick your version: >> >> # ls -lt /usr/local/bin/autoconf* >> -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 7672 Aug 22 2004 >> /usr/local/bin/autoconf259 -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 6194 Aug 22 >> 2004 /usr/local/bin/autoconf253 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 5007 Jul >> 27 2003 /usr/local/bin/autoconf213 >> >> But, we only run those when modifying configure.in and such, and not >> as part of any scripts ... > > Btw., the FreeBSD ports have autoconf-2.59, which is a version patched > for FreeBSD use, and gnu-autoconf-2.59, which is the unmodified GNU > release, useful for folks like us, cooperating across many operating > systems. Make sure you use the latter one. > > -- > Peter Eisentraut > http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/ > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings > > > ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > 'k, just checked, and we have the FreeBSD one installed, and always > have used in the in the past ... I can install the gnu-* one if you > think it will make a difference though, but I don't believe we've had > any problem reports on any of our past releases ... ? I think it is the general understanding that we use GNU Autoconf, not FreeBSD Autoconf, so the former is the one that should get used. Also, when the next person who is not using FreeBSD checks in a configure update, we get useless diffs and divergences that we could happily do without. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > 'k, just checked, and we have the FreeBSD one installed, and always > > have used in the in the past ... I can install the gnu-* one if you > > think it will make a difference though, but I don't believe we've had > > any problem reports on any of our past releases ... ? > > I think it is the general understanding that we use GNU Autoconf, not > FreeBSD Autoconf, so the former is the one that should get used. Also, > when the next person who is not using FreeBSD checks in a configure > update, we get useless diffs and divergences that we could happily do > without. Does the FreeBSD one actually produce different output? I don't remember seeing any of that and I am not running FreeBSD. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania19073
Bruce Momjian wrote: > Does the FreeBSD one actually produce different output? If it did not, why would they bother making a separate package called "gnu-autoconf" with the note "This port is specifically designed for developers that want to create cross-platform software distributions on FreeBSD."? -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
On Sat, 2 Jul 2005, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: >> Does the FreeBSD one actually produce different output? > > If it did not, why would they bother making a separate package called > "gnu-autoconf" with the note "This port is specifically designed for > developers that want to create cross-platform software distributions on > FreeBSD."? If it did produce different output, why haven't we noticed it prior to this? Has there actually *been* a problem that nobody has reported? ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Sat, 2 Jul 2005, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >> Bruce Momjian wrote: >> >>> Does the FreeBSD one actually produce different output? >> >> >> If it did not, why would they bother making a separate package called >> "gnu-autoconf" with the note "This port is specifically designed for >> developers that want to create cross-platform software distributions on >> FreeBSD."? > > > If it did produce different output, why haven't we noticed it prior to > this? Has there actually *been* a problem that nobody has reported? > > Is autoconf actually run as part of any of our packaging scripts? My impression was that developers ran it and the committed the results (e.g. a configure script), unlike, say, bison where the scripts for tarballs have to call it. But then, of course I hardly know :-) cheers andrew
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>> If it did produce different output, why haven't we noticed it prior to
>> this? Has there actually *been* a problem that nobody has reported?
>>
> Is autoconf actually run as part of any of our packaging scripts?
I don't think so ... but if Marc is the one to stamp a release number
into configure.in, his resulting configure might vary from other
people's versions, if the local autoconf on that machine is not
standard.
regards, tom lane
On Sat, 2 Jul 2005, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > Marc G. Fournier wrote: > >> On Sat, 2 Jul 2005, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> >>> Bruce Momjian wrote: >>> >>>> Does the FreeBSD one actually produce different output? >>> >>> >>> If it did not, why would they bother making a separate package called >>> "gnu-autoconf" with the note "This port is specifically designed for >>> developers that want to create cross-platform software distributions on >>> FreeBSD."? >> >> >> If it did produce different output, why haven't we noticed it prior to >> this? Has there actually *been* a problem that nobody has reported? >> >> > Is autoconf actually run as part of any of our packaging scripts? My > impression was that developers ran it and the committed the results (e.g. a > configure script), unlike, say, bison where the scripts for tarballs have to > call it. But then, of course I hardly know :-) Every time I do a release, the last step is to update teh version numbver in configure.in and run autoconf on it, and I do that using the version of autoconf that is on the development server itself (ie. the FreeBSD one) ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Bruce Momjian wrote: > Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > Does the FreeBSD one actually produce different output? I don't > remember seeing any of that and I am not running FreeBSD. > On my 5.4 system autoconf259 and gnu-autoconf both fetch the *same* src file (autoconf-2.59.tar.bz2 with md5sum 1ee40f7a676b3cfdc0e3f7cd81551b5f). The autoconf259 package applys some FreeBSD specific patches - they seem to be mainly about ensuring the package calls itself 'autoconf259' instead of plain old 'autoconf', plus a permission change for auxiliary directories. (I have attached the 4 patches...) Mark
Attachment
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > If it did produce different output, why haven't we noticed it prior > to this? Has there actually *been* a problem that nobody has > reported? Note that we have never used Autoconf 2.59 before, so nobody could have ever noticed and reported anything. This FreeBSD vs. GNU split doesn't appear to exist in the ports tree for earlier versions. It might be worth figuring out how these variants actually differ. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 09:46:19PM +0200 I heard the voice of Peter Eisentraut, and lo! it spake thus: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Does the FreeBSD one actually produce different output? > > If it did not, why would they bother making a separate package > called "gnu-autoconf" with the note "This port is specifically > designed for developers that want to create cross-platform software > distributions on FreeBSD."? Because the non-"gnu-" variants patch to stuff version numbers in all the filenames and invocations down the chain, so you can have different versions installed at once. Different packages might be written to different versions, and they tend to be non-cross-compatible. -- Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | fullermd@over-yonder.net Systems/Network Administrator | http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/ On the Internet, nobody can hear you scream.