Re: [PATCH] build: use AC_CONFIG_HEADERS, not AM_CONFIG_HEADER

Pavel Raiskup <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.gnu.utils.bugs
Message-ID <1362491812.16405.1.camel__16456.5072315328$1362493752$gmane$org@praiskup.usersys.redhat.com>
Dear Stefano, sorry for so late response,

> On 12/30/2012 10:35 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Il 29/12/2012 21:43, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto:
>>> On 12/29/2012 08:46 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>>> Il 29/12/2012 17:32, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto:
>>>>> * configure.ac: Here.  The latter has been removed in Automake 1.13.
>>>>
>>>> Is there any reason for this,
>>>>
>>> Avoiding to keep too much cruft around the codebase, and smoothing
>>> possible future transitions to Automake-NG.
>>
>> Two lines of code are not "cruft".  It's only cruft if it happens
>> _outside_ the definition of AM_CONFIG_HEADER itself.
>>
>>>> apart from randomly breaking
>>>> perfectly-working packages?
>>>>
>>>> The right way to do this is to rely on the autoupdate machinery.
>>>>
>>> I thought I had deprecated this macro in the 1.12.x series already,
>>> with proper warnings.  Wasn't that the case?
>>
>> Deprecating is different from letting autoupdate convert it automatically.
>>
> At any rate, I agree the error message caused by the abrupt removal
> is horrible.  I'll soon post a patch to have still-exiting uses of
> AM_CONFIG_HEADER give a clear error message (as is done for the
> AM_C_PROTOTYPES since Automake 1.12).  Making that fix quickly
> available will be a good reason for a 1.13.1 release.

I'm still thinking about this resolution.  Could you please reconsider
again this situation?  We have in Fedora 18 about 700+ packages dependent
on automake.  I guess that other distributions have similar numbers.
Quite a lot of these packages are still dependent on AM_CONFIG_HEADER,
etc.

The future incompatibility is *not* big pain for developers; but mostly
for disto build systems :(.  Maintainers are thus forced not to do updates
for automake because of these problems ~> and users will not have then
easy access to the newest up2date automake source.  I know that because I
have done the automake update to 1.13 and it was **too** early.  My bad I
know - I should know that but it seems to be quite unnecessary.

Important to note is that I really don't want to make multiple packages like
automake113/automake114/(or whatever new version it will be).  I just
want to have one easy and stable package 'automake'.  I don't want to have the
same source in distribution multiple times — to fix some security/code problems
on multiple places each time they comes.

The only solution for me was revert as quickly as possible your changes —
re-add obsoleted macros back to automake downstream.  And next time I'll be
definitely **much more** careful.  Could you please look at it once again
please?  I can help you with patch preparation if you consider this as
suitable.  No big need for testing this — just re-add the AU_DEFUN statements
for old macros.

======================

I was thinking about this one quite a long time.  Firstly I was thinking
about "how to get rid of these macros in my distro".  There are some
possibilities worth to try.  But the main question is:  Why?! these old
macros are _still_ alive?  There are dead packages using legacy macros of
course - but it is a different story.  I think that the most important
thing is because you are not telling this clearly to users.  I just want
to say that the 'obsolete' warnings are disabled by default, why?  Could
we discuss this?  Btw., by grepping our spec files - I found three
packages using the -W option in autoconf/automake/autoreconf.

I don't want to set $WARNINGS system-wide.  Do you see another solutions?
I know that this more about autoconf - but still, you may stop me before I
raise autoconf mailing list.

First of all, please consider re-adding the obsolete macros back to
automake, it would be really appreciated.

Thanks for discussion :),
Pavel
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.