Simo Sorce wrote:
> We can easily test for rpath,
But who does it on all packages regularly? AutoQA is still vaporware.
> Then you should love waf, as it ships only source code, no generated
> code at all. In this it is much better than autoconf/automake/libtool
> I guess this is a point in favor then.
[snip]
> Again, aside for adoption, then you should like waf more than
> autotools, as waf entails understanding only 1 language: python
> Autotools require you to know m4, shell, ac macros, etc... much more
> difficult to grasp.
Indeed, it's much less of a mess than autotools.
What I object to is bundling the common Python code with every project.
> So you are adding "not a copied one" just to exclude things like
> keeping a copy of waf in the tree ?
I don't care whether it's a copy of waf or a copy of libtool. (Or even a
copy of CMake, for that matter, but no upstream project in their right mind
would bundle CMake anyway, since it's a C++ binary.) Common code should be
shared, not copied.
> So by this I guess you will soon argue that all projects in fedora will
> have to be patch to remove autoconf/autotool/libtool and replaced with
> something you like more ?
>
> You may not like it, but that's how things are with autotools, not
> really useful to whine about it.
%prep
autoreconf -i -f
will regenerate all the generated stuff from source and recopy the copied
stuff from the current copy. If we decide we don't trust autoreconf, we can
also rm -f the generated and copied files before running autoreconf, just
like we rm any other bundled library or prebuilt binaries at the beginning
of %prep.
>> Generating that code from the actual source code should be done as
>> part of the build process.
>
> Who said that ?
It follows from the fact that to exercise the rights given to me by Free
Software, I have to be able to edit the build system files just like the
rest of the code and still be able to build the software successfully. If I
can't regenerate the build system from source, I can't easily make any
changes to it. (Editing a generated file is a PITA.)
> Let's not start confusing technical issues with legal issues.
> I'll consider your last point just hand waiving, smoke and mirrors to
> try to add more meat to your argument, that can be briefly summarized
> in:
>
> 1) I don't like waf
> 2) In some rare cases it is possible to fix a "potential", (and often
> build time only) security issue if part of the build system is common
> code in the system.
>
> I haven't seen any other reasonable technical argument.
The fact that it's a PITA to make any changes to generated "source", that
it's much easier to change the true source and that therefore it is
important to ensure that the software can be built from the actual source
code is a technical argument.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
