Gary V. Vaughan wrote: > Hi Jim, > > On 4 Oct 2011, at 17:09, Jim Meyering wrote: >> Gary V. Vaughan wrote: >>> Sorry I didn't notice your reply sooner. >>> >>> On 22 Sep 2011, at 23:38, Jim Meyering wrote: >>>> Gary V. Vaughan wrote: >>>>>>> * g...@github.com:gvvaughan/GNU-coreutils.git in gary/bootstrap >>>>>>> https://github.com/gvvaughan/GNU-coreutils/commits/gary/bootstrap >>>> >>>> I'll try to find time for this next week. >>> >>> Thanks. How did you get on? >> >> Hi Gary, >> >> I started looking, but found that your bootstrap.conf is >> months old, and thus not usable with the current sources. > > Indeed. Although the idea was to prove that my bootstrap works well by > writing a series of bootstrap.conf for a selection of GNU projects with > different bootstrap requirements... and much less to provide bootstrap.conf's > for the projects I chose for that demonstration. And I wasn't really expecting > to wait 14 months for it to be adopted into gnulib, and didn't anticipate the > ongoing development in those projects would make my demo bootstrap.confs > obsolescent :( > >> Do you feel like rebasing it? > > Sure, although it will take me a few days to find the time - is that because > you're planning to adopt my bootstrap script into coreutils master > unilaterally? > If not then you can easily checkout my coreutils snapshot from github to > verify > that it is perfectly sane. > > Really, I'm trying to help gnulib to adopt the script first and foremost... > although the last few Zile releases have been using it, and I'll be making > a Libtool release in the next week or so that uses it irrespective of gnulib > adoption. And I expect I'll also put an M4 alpha out with that script too > before long. So, if you want to unilaterally take the script into coreutils > too, then I'll be very happy to provide any assistance I can with updating > the coreutils bootstrap.conf I wrote all those months ago.
I'm trying it solely because you've invested so much in it and asked so many times. I'm certainly not chomping at the bit for a new version. However, I confess that I was disappointed by your rejection of some of the style-related suggestions made by Stefano, and have to say that if I do use it, the copy I use in coreutils, grep, gzip, patch, parted, etc. will inherit most, if not all, of his suggestions. >>> I just tried to check that everything in my coreutils bootstrap.conf still >>> works correctly with coreutils master, but unfortunately coreutils bootstrap >>> now requires that I install the latest autotools -- including >>> gettext-0.18.1.1 >>> which doesn't compile on Mac OS 10.7.1 with the latest Apple supplied gcc >>> (4.2.1 LLVM). And without that, I can no longer bootstrap coreutils on my >>> Mac :-( >> >> If it's a gettext problem, report it and it should be fixed very quickly. >> Otherwise, just adjust the AM_GNU_GETTEXT_VERSION([0.18.1]) line >> in configure.ac to accommodate whatever version of gettext you have. >> You should be ok if it's 0.17.x. > > If an older version of gettext is sufficient, then can you please require > that version instead? Gettext is a large complex package that is quite a Using an older version is sufficient to ensure that your script works with coreutils. I don't see why everyone should accept an older version just because a build-glitch affects one type of system. The work-around is trivial. > challenge to compile on some of the architectures we support at times. > > At least as far as Mac OS 10.7 is concerned, I tracked the problem down to > a bug in the gnulib non-release that was used to bootstrap gettext-0.18.1.1, > which has since been fixed in gnulib. Again, did you report it? I guess Bruno may read this, but still. It's been over 100 commits since 0.18.1.1. Maybe the report of a build problem like that will encourage him to make a new release. > Rather than trying to rebootstrap > gettext to pick up the fix, and have to worry about other problems that > might bring, I hand-applied the patch to gettext configure, and was able to > build a new enough gettext. > > I haven't had time yet to pick up the coreutils bootstrap.conf update, but > I'll probably be able to get to it by the end of the week. If you're in a > hurry, then I think you might find writing your own updated bootstrap.conf > would be instructive in the vast improvements I think the new bootstrap I've > written brings to the table - and maybe help build enough confidence in it > that you'd like to help me adopt it into upstream gnulib? If I go with it, it will eventually gain at least 10 new client packages. However, I don't have a lot of time to invest in the transition, so anything you can do to make it easier may go a long way.
