-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14
Autoconf #292
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Draft
rhubert
wants to merge
2
commits into
BobBuildTool:master
Choose a base branch
from
rhubert:autoconf
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Draft
Autoconf #292
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How about passing the tool as option to the function? This variable is inconsistent to the other options available so far...
Also the
AUTOCONF_BOOTSTRAP_TOOLcould be subsumed by this option. You could pass a local function name asAUTOCONF_TOOLthat could do the bootstrap as well:foobarAutoconf() { ./bootstrap.sh ./autogen.sh } autoconfReconfigure -t foobarAutoconfThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This wouldn't work for me. I have another change to support building from development sources added in https://github.com/BobBuildTool/basement/blob/master/classes/autotools.yaml#L65
making the
autoconfReconfigurebeing called from theautotoolsBuildcall. If special bootstrapping is required I only have to addwhich usually doesn't conflict to other upstream changes... Following your suggestion I'd have to add an additional argument to
autotoolsBuildas well.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm, what about making the recipes work with tarballs and git/development sources? If
configureis not present, some magic must happen. What magic that is exactly could be put in the recipe. That would minimize the diff on your side and feel less "magic". Do you think this is feasible?Having magic variables in the class that nobody understands for what they are used makes it hardly maintainable. In the best case, one could even switch the affected recipes to their public git repository and verify that build from development sources still works.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sounds like a great idea and would indeed minimize the diff on my side.
A recipe would then look like:
? this would also mean to inherit the
autoconfclass in many, maybe all autotools based recipes.You mean to have conditional checkouts to switch between development and released sources using something like
BASEMENT_USE_DEV_SOURCES? Or would you prefer a individual switch for each package? This would make it 'hard' to test all the combinations...There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
My hope would be to be able to put most of the logic into the autotools class in
autotoolsBuild. And if some package needs to deviate from the default, there would be some options toautotoolsBuildto handle that...No, not even conditional checkouts. Maybe some override files with a (long) list of overrides? But I guess even this is just nice to have because switching to git repos will be tested extensively for the affected recipes on your side.