mån 2021-09-20 klockan 07:36 -0700 skrev Jim Meyering: > On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 12:49 AM Simon Josefsson via Gnulib > discussion > list <bug-gnulib@gnu.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Some syntax-check rules have a really poor failure mode (it prints > > all > > source code files to stdout) when the 'gnulib_dir' points to an > > empty > > git submodule checkout, see for example: > > > > https://storage.googleapis.com/gitlab-gprd-artifacts/08/35/08352f7ac0f5a870c92a7777a01ca17d0b44be10aff8451893987ed8dbf48231/2021_09_19/1602830917/1729528459/job.log?response-content-type=text%2Fplain%3B%20charset%3Dutf-8&response-content-disposition=inline&GoogleAccessId=gitlab-object-storage-...@gitlab-production.iam.gserviceaccount.com&Signature=fGIerRoWfE1woQD7hzvDst%2FPa67Kg9u9PjJxMB8vLpFD4DZIPDZNRBcqHQZV%0ARtRNSa2k2Er1W59wYe%2F%2FKY9C95YkIhMCftS5zBXfqsEPkRbU8CwcoG5clQoL%0A4Mpqy6OY1Kx7JUB86qBpYWFKlHLPosw0sscOolAGxcel2oZP1soxHLzxcgo%2B%0A66whawET8QK%2Bkj8FOElVzwVz93T8Qp0uZgvfoT7UVF2O9JGlEofYw7%2BrQm%2Ff%0AXOutkumck4OR17dGXSNaoWPO48Z7tDJLeAjWjnSUm%2F9ZPkYd%2B8IfxaEzACg%2B%0Av%2FS%2ByQpyp6eS1kdiliBmJFmL0Y7JJu7HgZiU21kkyw%3D%3D&Expires=1632123408 > > > > The patch below is not ideal -- consider if you did ./bootstrap -- > > no-git > > with the goal of using GNULIB_SRCDIR but for some reason ALSO did > > 'git > > submodule update --init', then the syntax-check rules will use the > > submodule checkout instead of the GNULIB_SRCDIR content -- but I > > believe > > things are better with the patch than without it. > ... > > -gnulib_dir ?= $(shell if test -d $(srcdir)/gnulib; then \ > > +gnulib_dir ?= $(shell if test -f $(srcdir)/gnulib/gnulib-tool; > > then \ > > echo $(srcdir)/gnulib; \ > > else \ > > echo ${GNULIB_SRCDIR}; \ > > Hi Simon, > > Maybe I'm misunderstanding the scenario, but if the gnulib dir is in > an inconsistent state, isn't it more appropriate that syntax-check > rules fail (even if noisily), than maybe-succeed because we pointed > them at another dir that's not even being used yet?
Hi! I don't know and I'm open for any behaviour, if it is consistently applied. Looking at the current state, it seems like 'make syntax- check' fail silently when some pre-requirements (like missing tools) are not met. Having a properly setup gnulib directory is only a requirement for very few rules (I think <5). I think it makes sense to run 'make syntax-check' from a tarball build, but then the tests that require a gnulib directory cannot work obviously (and could fail silently or with a warning). Further, it is not really that the gnulib dir is in an inconsistent state, it is that maint.mk does not really know what ./bootstrap used as the gnulib directory. Idealy, the decision made by ./bootstrap about which gnulib_dir it used should be preserved somehow, and then the same value should used by 'make syntax-check'. Achieving this seems complicated. Maybe it is sufficient that both scripts use similar enough logic to derive the value that it isn't a problem in practice. > Does it make sense to run "make syntax-check" without first having > run "make"? That latter requires a proper gnulib setup, in my > experience. Sure, but in the example above, there is a gnulib directory setup correctly (through the GNULIB_SRCDIR environment variable set in the docker image environment that ./bootstrap picks up) but 'make syntax- check' doesn't use it, but prefer the local non-populated gnulib/ git submodule. /Simon
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
