GNU bug report logs - #11034
Removing 'cygnus' mode in the near future

Previous Next

Package: automake;

Reported by: Stefano Lattarini <stefano.lattarini <at> gmail.com>

Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2012 00:03:02 UTC

Severity: wishlist

Tags: patch

Done: Stefano Lattarini <stefano.lattarini <at> gmail.com>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


Message #20 received at 11034 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefano Lattarini <stefano.lattarini <at> gmail.com>
To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph <at> codesourcery.com>
Cc: 11034 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, gdb <at> sourceware.org, Automake List <automake <at> gnu.org>,
	binutils <at> sourceware.org, gcc <at> gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:01:42 +0200
On 03/28/2012 02:29 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> 
>>   - texinfo.tex is not required if a Texinfo source file is specified. The
>>     assumption is that the file will be supplied, but in a place that
>>     Automake cannot find. This assumption is an artifact of how Cygnus
>>     packages are typically bundled.
> 
> texinfo.tex is in a known location, but only a single copy for GDB and 
> binutils and a single copy for GCC rather than in each directory needing 
> it.
>
Which makes perfect sense.  So Automake should support this use case.

> Is the approach used (for example) in libquadmath/Makefile.am
> 
> TEXINFO_TEX   = ../gcc/doc/include/texinfo.tex
> 
> considered a suitable approach for this case?
>
This would seem the most sensible approach, yes.  Want to give it a try to
see whether it works in the GCC/GDB/Binutils tree? (What should be verified
particularly carefully is that the idiom works also in VPATH builds).

>>   - Certain tools will be searched for in the build tree as well as in the
>>     user's PATH. These tools are runtest, expect, makeinfo and texi2dvi.
> 
> I did previously suggest removing the existing support for building and 
> using these tools in-tree 
> <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg01674.html>, but there was 
> pushback on that.  I don't know, however, if it actually depends on 
> anything built into automake.
>
Hmm...  Couldn't the issues (if any) be worked around by explicitly
re-defining the $(EXPECT), $(RUNTEST), $(MAKEINFO) and $(TEXI2DVI)
variables in the relevant Makefiles so that they point to the bundled
tools?  E.g.,

  EXPECT = $(top_builddir)/../expect/expect

and so on.

>>   - The check target doesn't depend on all.
> 
> I'm not aware of a need for that.
> 
Glad to hear that.

Regards,
  Stefano




This bug report was last modified 13 years and 101 days ago.

Previous Next


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