GNU bug report logs - #10091
[GNU Libtool 2.4.2] testsuite: 47 115 123 failed on Cygwin 1.7.9 on WinXP

Previous Next

To reply to this bug, email your comments to 10091 AT debbugs.gnu.org.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefano Lattarini <stefano.lattarini <at> gmail.com>
To: bug-libtool <at> gnu.org
Subject: [GNU Libtool 2.4.2] testsuite: 47 115 123 failed on Cygwin 1.7.9 on
	WinXP
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 23:07:13 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Attached are testsuite.log and config.log (compressed).

Regards,
  Stefano

[testsuite.log.zip (application/zip, attachment)]

[config.log.zip (application/zip, attachment)]

Message #8 received at 10091 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Peter Rosin <peda <at> lysator.liu.se>
To: Stefano Lattarini <stefano.lattarini <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 10091 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#10091: [GNU Libtool 2.4.2] testsuite: 47 115 123 failed on
	Cygwin 1.7.9 on WinXP
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 00:19:32 +0100

Hi Stefano!

Stefano Lattarini skrev 2011-11-20 23:07:
> Attached are testsuite.log and config.log (compressed).

Just a quick sanity check, have you installed the 'file' utility?

Cheers,
Peter

Message #11 received at 10091 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefano Lattarini <stefano.lattarini <at> gmail.com>
To: Peter Rosin <peda <at> lysator.liu.se>
Cc: 10091 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#10091: [GNU Libtool 2.4.2] testsuite: 47 115 123 failed on
	Cygwin 1.7.9 on WinXP
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 09:26:14 +0100

On Monday 21 November 2011, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Hi Stefano!
>
Hi Peter.

> Stefano Lattarini skrev 2011-11-20 23:07:
> > Attached are testsuite.log and config.log (compressed).
> 
> Just a quick sanity check, have you
>
(Aside: this system is not installed nor administered by me).

> installed the 'file' utility?
>
No, it's not installed.

Regards,
  Stefano

Message #14 received at 10091 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Peter Rosin <peda <at> lysator.liu.se>
To: Stefano Lattarini <stefano.lattarini <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 10091 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#10091: [GNU Libtool 2.4.2] testsuite: 47 115 123 failed on
	Cygwin 1.7.9 on WinXP
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:11:54 +0100

Stefano Lattarini skrev 2011-11-21 09:26:
> On Monday 21 November 2011, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> Hi Stefano!
>>
> Hi Peter.
> 
>> Stefano Lattarini skrev 2011-11-20 23:07:
>>> Attached are testsuite.log and config.log (compressed).
>>
>> Just a quick sanity check, have you
>>
> (Aside: this system is not installed nor administered by me).
> 
>> installed the 'file' utility?
>>
> No, it's not installed.

I believe the design decision is that Libtool on Cygwin requires 'file' to
be installed. That seems unfriendly to me, as the casual user trying to
build some random libtooled package (or libtool itself) doesn't know and
probably doesn't expect that 'file' is required. The fact that 'file' is
a dependency on the libtool package in Cygwin is of little help as the
casual user generally does not need to install libtool in order to build
that random libtooled package (or libtool itself).

I am aware that sometime in the past users were sort of required to
relibtoolize any package using libtool in order for it to have a any chance
of actually working on Cygwin (and in the process 'file' would be installed),
but that is not the case anymore as upstream libtool is very close to (if not
identical to?) libtool as delivered by Cygwin.

Maybe what's needed is some check at configure-time that bails on Cygwin in
case 'file' is not found? Silent breakage is bad...

Cheers,
Peter

Message #17 received at 10091 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Peter Rosin <peda <at> lysator.liu.se>
To: Earnie <earnie <at> users.sourceforge.net>
Cc: 10091 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#10091: [GNU Libtool 2.4.2] testsuite: 47 115 123 failed on
	Cygwin 1.7.9 on WinXP
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 20:58:08 +0100

Hi Earnie!

[adding back the bug-tracker, I hope that's ok]

Earnie skrev 2011-11-21 14:31:
> Peter Rosin wrote:
>> Stefano Lattarini skrev 2011-11-21 09:26:
>>> On Monday 21 November 2011, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>>> Hi Stefano!
>>>>
>>> Hi Peter.
>>>
>>>> Stefano Lattarini skrev 2011-11-20 23:07:
>>>>> Attached are testsuite.log and config.log (compressed).
>>>>
>>>> Just a quick sanity check, have you
>>>>
>>> (Aside: this system is not installed nor administered by me).
>>>
>>>> installed the 'file' utility?
>>>>
>>> No, it's not installed.
>>
>> I believe the design decision is that Libtool on Cygwin requires
>> 'file' to be installed. That seems unfriendly to me, as the casual
>> user trying to build some random libtooled package (or libtool
>> itself) doesn't know and probably doesn't expect that 'file' is
>> required. The fact that 'file' is a dependency on the libtool package
>> in Cygwin is of little help as the casual user generally does not
>> need to install libtool in order to build that random libtooled
>> package (or libtool itself).
>>
> 
> File is a standard POSIX utility often required in a configure script. 
> It is one of the binaries supplied with MSYS.  I don't find it illogical
> for libtool to require some standard set of utilities to be available
> and since Cygwin is POSIX emulation the set of commands that are
> specified by POSIX is the standard set.  It is the user's responsibility
> to make sure they are installed.
> 
> http://manuals.ts.fujitsu.com/file/8867/posix_k.pdf

Right, to express myself more clearly, I don't think it is unfriendly to
require 'file' as such. I just think it is over on the unfriendly side to
/silently/ require it and break in mysterious ways when it is missing.
Especially so when it is so easy to create a Cygwin installation that
lacks it. 'file' is not part of the Cygwin base install, and few packages
require it, Libtool, Cygport and a couple of others. But nothing you
generally need to build things like make, binutils or gcc require 'file'
so it is very easy to overlook it.

Cheers,
Peter

Message #20 received at 10091 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Earnie <earnie <at> users.sourceforge.net>
To: Peter Rosin <peda <at> lysator.liu.se>
Cc: 10091 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#10091: [GNU Libtool 2.4.2] testsuite: 47 115 123 failed on
	Cygwin 1.7.9 on WinXP
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 08:02:37 -0500

Peter Rosin wrote:
> Hi Earnie!
>
> [adding back the bug-tracker, I hope that's ok]
>

Yes, I'm just not used to needing to reply-all.

> Earnie skrev 2011-11-21 14:31:
>> Peter Rosin wrote:
>>> Stefano Lattarini skrev 2011-11-21 09:26:
>>>> On Monday 21 November 2011, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>>>> Hi Stefano!
>>>>>
>>>> Hi Peter.
>>>>
>>>>> Stefano Lattarini skrev 2011-11-20 23:07:
>>>>>> Attached are testsuite.log and config.log (compressed).
>>>>>
>>>>> Just a quick sanity check, have you
>>>>>
>>>> (Aside: this system is not installed nor administered by me).
>>>>
>>>>> installed the 'file' utility?
>>>>>
>>>> No, it's not installed.
>>>
>>> I believe the design decision is that Libtool on Cygwin requires
>>> 'file' to be installed. That seems unfriendly to me, as the
>>> casual user trying to build some random libtooled package (or
>>> libtool itself) doesn't know and probably doesn't expect that
>>> 'file' is required. The fact that 'file' is a dependency on the
>>> libtool package in Cygwin is of little help as the casual user
>>> generally does not need to install libtool in order to build that
>>> random libtooled package (or libtool itself).
>>>
>>
>> File is a standard POSIX utility often required in a configure
>> script. It is one of the binaries supplied with MSYS. I don't find
>> it illogical for libtool to require some standard set of utilities
>> to be available and since Cygwin is POSIX emulation the set of
>> commands that are specified by POSIX is the standard set. It is
>> the user's responsibility to make sure they are installed.
>>
>> http://manuals.ts.fujitsu.com/file/8867/posix_k.pdf
>
> Right, to express myself more clearly, I don't think it is unfriendly
> to require 'file' as such. I just think it is over on the unfriendly
> side to /silently/ require it and break in mysterious ways when it is
> missing. Especially so when it is so easy to create a Cygwin
> installation that lacks it. 'file' is not part of the Cygwin base
> install, and few packages require it, Libtool, Cygport and a couple
> of others. But nothing you generally need to build things like make,
> binutils or gcc require 'file' so it is very easy to overlook it.

I think it should be part of the base Cygwin since it is a required
POSIX tool.  Go complain on cygwin <at> cygwin.com about that.  As for
libtool I don't think a patch is warranted but maybe a check of if file
exists as a command could be made.  What do others think?

-- 
Earnie
-- https://sites.google.com/site/earnieboyd/

Message #23 received at 10091 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Peter Rosin <peda <at> lysator.liu.se>
To: 10091 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: Earnie <earnie <at> users.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: bug#10091: [GNU Libtool 2.4.2] testsuite: 47 115 123 failed on
	Cygwin 1.7.9 on WinXP
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 15:14:17 +0100

Earnie skrev 2011-11-22 14:02:
> I think it should be part of the base Cygwin since it is a required
> POSIX tool.  Go complain on cygwin <at> cygwin.com about that.  As for
> libtool I don't think a patch is warranted but maybe a check of if file
> exists as a command could be made.  What do others think?

I agree, http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2011-11/msg00346.html

Cheers,
Peter

Message #26 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Charles Wilson <libtool <at> cwilson.fastmail.fm>
To: Peter Rosin <peda <at> lysator.liu.se>, Libtool Bugs List <bug-libtool <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 10091 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Earnie <earnie <at> users.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: bug#10091: [GNU Libtool 2.4.2] testsuite: 47 115 123 failed on
	Cygwin 1.7.9 on WinXP
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 23:56:37 -0500

On 11/22/2011 9:14 AM, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Earnie skrev 2011-11-22 14:02:
>> I think it should be part of the base Cygwin since it is a required
>> POSIX tool.

Wait, what?  *libtool* is enshrined in the POSIX specification?   Or do 
you mean that POSIX specifies that the *file* tool is required?

>> Go complain on cygwin <at> cygwin.com about that.

Peter already has, and as of today 'file' is part of the cygwin base 
installation.

>> As for
>> libtool I don't think a patch is warranted but maybe a check of if file
>> exists as a command could be made.  What do others think?

Well, silently failing is just wrong.  libtool.m4 should check for file 
(on cygwin|mingw) and die/warn if not found.

> I agree, http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2011-11/msg00346.html

Right, thanks for doing that Peter.

--
Chuck

Message #32 received at 10091 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Earnie <earnie <at> users.sourceforge.net>
To: Charles Wilson <libtool <at> cwilson.fastmail.fm>
Cc: 10091 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, peda <at> lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: bug#10091: [GNU Libtool 2.4.2] testsuite: 47 115 123 failed on
	Cygwin 1.7.9 on WinXP
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 13:17:32 -0500

Charles Wilson wrote:
> On 11/22/2011 9:14 AM, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> Earnie skrev 2011-11-22 14:02:
>>> I think it should be part of the base Cygwin since it is a
>>> required POSIX tool.
>
> Wait, what? *libtool* is enshrined in the POSIX specification? Or
> do you mean that POSIX specifies that the *file* tool is required?
>

Yes, file is part of POSIX.

>>> Go complain on cygwin <at> cygwin.com about that.
>
> Peter already has, and as of today 'file' is part of the cygwin base
> installation.
>

Ok, cool.

-- 
Earnie
-- https://sites.google.com/site/earnieboyd/

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.