Package: automake;
Reported by: Ben Elliston <bje <at> air.net.au>
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2018 06:47:01 UTC
Severity: wishlist
Tags: confirmed, easy, help
Message #28 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
From: Bogdan <bogdro_rep <at> gmx.us> To: Karl Berry <karl <at> freefriends.org> Cc: automake-patches <at> gnu.org Subject: Re: bug#33573: Patch to replace symlinks with files Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2022 20:20:40 +0100
Karl Berry <karl <at> freefriends.org>, Sat Dec 31 2022 03:30:42 GMT+0100
(Central European Standard Time)
> Hi Bogdan,
>
> Someone reported a bug for this, so I simply gave it a try.
>
> Thank you! I didn't realize you were working on some of the old bugs.
> That is great!
:)
> To bring this one in particular to fruition: can you check what happens
> when -c -a would need to overwrite a symlink? I think it should just
> give a warning. Then the user can decide what to do.
It simply doesn't do or say anything, because the object already
exists (the subroutine simply leaves).
$ rm -f doc/texinfo.tex
$ automake --add-missing
doc/Makefile.am:1: installing 'doc/texinfo.tex'
$ ll doc/texinfo.tex
lrwxrwxrwx 1 bogdan bogdan 36 gru 31 19:48 doc/texinfo.tex ->
/usr/share/automake-1.16/texinfo.tex
$ automake --add-missing --copy
$
> And, can you check that automake -a -f -c does in fact overwrite a
> symlink with a copy? And, I guess, that -a -f, without the -c,
> overwrites files with symlinks? (Or, if it gives an error now, that's ok
> too.)
The combination '-a -f -c' does what's expected (replaces a symlink
with a regular file):
$ ll doc/texinfo.tex
lrwxrwxrwx 1 bogdan bogdan 36 gru 31 19:48 doc/texinfo.tex ->
/usr/share/automake-1.16/texinfo.tex
$ automake --add-missing --copy
$ automake --add-missing --copy --force-missing
$ ll doc/texinfo.tex
-rw------- 1 bogdan bogdan 374230 gru 31 19:49 doc/texinfo.tex
$
That's where my idea about updating the documentation comes from - may
not be clear enough.
Just '-a -f' does indeed replace regular files with symlinks:
$ ll doc/texinfo.tex
-rw------- 1 bogdan bogdan 374230 gru 31 19:49 doc/texinfo.tex
$ automake --add-missing --force-missing
$ ll doc/texinfo.tex
lrwxrwxrwx 1 bogdan bogdan 36 gru 31 19:51 doc/texinfo.tex ->
/usr/share/automake-1.16/texinfo.tex
$
$ automake --version
automake (GNU automake) 1.16.5
> And that the test checks this stuff?
The change I'm implementing is tested by the test I've added. It
simply checks if after --copy the file is not a link:
$AUTOMAKE --add-missing --copy
test ! -h texinfo.tex || exit 1
(unneeded parts removed)
> Sorry, but these are the kinds of nitty-gritty things that every
> automake change needs to think about.
Yes, testing and portability is important, I know.
> Just maybe make something clearer in the documentation and/or the help
> message in such case, like:
>
> Yes, agreed. No problem there.
>
> I'm not subscribed
>
> If you intend to keep working for a while on automake (I hope so), you
> should subscribe to the mailing lists, especially bug-automake and
> automake-patches. Unfortunately the debbugs software does not send mail
> to everyone who has been on a given bug (not even the bug originator),
> but only to the associated mailing list, as I understand it.
I see. We'll see what my future work on Automake will look like. Maybe
I could contribute something useful. Right now, I'm planning just one
more patch ("the last this year" - yes, it's still 2022 here :) ) and
later we'll see what time allows. I also have my own projects to look
after once in a while :).
Some guide like "to implement this and this, you need to change/add
subroutine that and that" would be nice for beginners.
I wish there would be some kind of roadmap or a list of interesting
ideas to-do in Automake. The "PLANS" doesn't have much, not for me, at
least... Otherwise, I don't know if e.g. Automake 2.0 is implemented
in 99% already or is it maybe just 1% and a full re-write is planned.
> For the same reason, it is good to explicitly cc a bug's originator and
> anyone else who has contributed to the bug, if you happen to have them.
I didn't want to send any notifications to the bugs in case my patches
get rejected for some reason (like they don't work on *BSD/some
antique Unix, don't match the programming style, etc., or are
completely against the idea).
Furthermore, Automake doesn't get so many releases, as I see, so even
implementing a fix doesn't mean that it will go to a release any time
soon.
> and I didn't see them in the mailing list's archive :).
>
> I see all your messages there now, I believe:
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-automake/2022-12/threads.html
>
> As I recall, there is a delay of up to an hour or maybe more before the
> archives are updated. Unfortunately it does not happen when a message is
> received; there's a separate polling cron job :(.
Right. They're there. Unfortunately, the Automake website points to
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake-patches/ instead :).
That's also where I send my mails to, not knowing they end up in
"bug-automake". Minor issue, but may be confusing, as you can see :).
Thanks.
--
Regards - Bogdan ('bogdro') D. (GNU/Linux & FreeDOS)
X86 assembly (DOS, GNU/Linux): http://bogdro.evai.pl/index-en.php
Soft(EN): http://bogdro.evai.pl/soft http://bogdro.evai.pl/soft4asm
www.Xiph.org www.TorProject.org www.LibreOffice.org www.GnuPG.org
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.