On Wednesday 15 May 2013 12:26:46 Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 05/15/2013 06:13 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Wednesday 15 May 2013 09:54:08 Ralf Corsepius wrote: > >> On 05/15/2013 05:53 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > >>> On Monday 08 October 2012 08:46:57 Paul Wise wrote: > >>>> So, Debian is in the process of bringing up our upcoming arm64 port. > >>>> Unfortunately we are also coming across lots of packages with rather > >>>> outdated config.guess and config.sub files (see links below). We could > >>>> patch every single package that contains config.guess and config.sub > >>>> but that would be a lot of effort that doesn't scale. We could also > >>>> patch our build tools but the problem would still exist for other > >>>> distros. > >>> > >>> yes, Gentoo fixed this for every package in our tree like 9 years ago > >>> (we added a common function like 11 years ago that ebuilds could call > >>> manually, but we found that didn't scale). when you run a standard > >>> autoconf script, we automatically search for files named "config.sub" > >>> and "config.guess" and replace them with the up-to-date host copy. no > >>> checking or anything :). in hindsight, that seems like a bad idea, > >>> but in practice, i think we have yet to find a package that this > >>> doesn't actually work. > >> > >> Well, I can't imagine a case affecting config.guess, but constructing > >> cases affecting config.sub is pretty simple. > >> > >> Classical use-case is developing on cross-built packages, which require > >> a new host/target-tuple and therefore ship a customized/modified > >> config.sub. > > > > i take the stance that if you haven't merged your code into the GNU > > config project, then you deserve to break. > > Well, config.sub has allways been amongst those files the autotools > supposed not to be generated. > > That said, if you replace them by brute-force, you are breaking the UI > of the autotools - Read: an utterly bad idea. RH/Fedora has done this > for a very long time and has given up doing so for several years, and > now is relying on packagers explicitly replacing them (autoreconf -f > rsp. by patching). i understand the point you're making. however, ~10 years of building from source in Gentoo and doing this for every single build has shown that in practice, it's irrelevant. we've found exactly one package where this made a slight difference (gmp), and even then it was a matter of selecting optional optimizations that we can control via other routes. -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
