GNU bug report logs - #67796
Automake is not compatible with older Autoconfs we provide

Previous Next

To reply to this bug, email your comments to 67796 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: Ekaitz Zarraga <ekaitz <at> elenq.tech>
To: "bug-guix <at> gnu.org" <bug-guix <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Automake is not compatible with older Autoconfs we provide
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2023 16:00:46 +0100

Hi,

We have automake packaged, but it's not compatible with older autoconf 
versions so autoconf is not very usable at this point.

```
Ekaitz <at> tuxedo ~/projects/nlnet/gcc/libstdc++-v3 (riscv)$ guix shell 
automake autoconf <at> 2.64
Ekaitz <at> tuxedo ~/projects/nlnet/gcc/libstdc++-v3 (riscv) [env]$ 
autoreconf -vif
autoreconf: Entering directory `.'
autoreconf: configure.ac: not using Gettext
autoreconf: running: aclocal --force -I . -I .. -I ../config
configure.ac:74: error: Autoconf version 2.65 or higher is required
/gnu/store/p0c4zj5na8w9hpsp5v5h637wnybx0hb6-automake-1.16.5/share/aclocal-1.16/init.m4:29: 
AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE is expanded from...
configure.ac:74: the top level
autom4te: /gnu/store/n3kxhwi5qdil1vlaq5b6zwyiv7wkrw76-m4-1.4.19/bin/m4 
failed with exit status: 63
aclocal: error: autom4te failed with exit status: 63
autoreconf: aclocal failed with exit status: 63
```

Is this only my thing?

Message #8 received at 67796 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
To: Ekaitz Zarraga <ekaitz <at> elenq.tech>
Cc: 67796 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#67796: Automake is not compatible with older Autoconfs we
 provide
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2023 11:59:10 -0500

Hi,

Ekaitz Zarraga <ekaitz <at> elenq.tech> writes:

> Hi,
>
> We have automake packaged, but it's not compatible with older autoconf
> versions so autoconf is not very usable at this point.
>
> ```
> Ekaitz <at> tuxedo ~/projects/nlnet/gcc/libstdc++-v3 (riscv)$ guix shell
> automake autoconf <at> 2.64
> Ekaitz <at> tuxedo ~/projects/nlnet/gcc/libstdc++-v3 (riscv) [env]$
> autoreconf -vif
> autoreconf: Entering directory `.'
> autoreconf: configure.ac: not using Gettext
> autoreconf: running: aclocal --force -I . -I .. -I ../config
> configure.ac:74: error: Autoconf version 2.65 or higher is required
> /gnu/store/p0c4zj5na8w9hpsp5v5h637wnybx0hb6-automake-1.16.5/share/aclocal-1.16/init.m4:29:
> AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE is expanded from...
> configure.ac:74: the top level
> autom4te: /gnu/store/n3kxhwi5qdil1vlaq5b6zwyiv7wkrw76-m4-1.4.19/bin/m4
> failed with exit status: 63
> aclocal: error: autom4te failed with exit status: 63
> autoreconf: aclocal failed with exit status: 63
> ```
>
> Is this only my thing?

'guix show automake' shows we also have automake 1.9.6 available.  I
suppose this still works with the older autoconf?

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim

Message #11 received at 67796 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ekaitz Zarraga <ekaitz <at> elenq.tech>
To: 67796 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
Subject: Automake is not compatible with older Autoconfs we provide
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2023 20:47:56 +0100

Maxim,

> 'guix show automake' shows we also have automake 1.9.6 available.  I 
suppose this still works with the older autoconf?

I don't have that automake version and I can't find it Guix's codebase. 
Are you up to date with master?

Best,
Ekaitz

Message #14 received at 67796 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
To: Ekaitz Zarraga <ekaitz <at> elenq.tech>
Cc: 67796 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Automake is not compatible with older Autoconfs we provide
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2023 15:47:28 -0500

Hi,

Ekaitz Zarraga <ekaitz <at> elenq.tech> writes:

> Maxim,
>
>> 'guix show automake' shows we also have automake 1.9.6 available.  I
>   suppose this still works with the older autoconf?
>
> I don't have that automake version and I can't find it Guix's
> codebase. Are you up to date with master?

Oh, indeed, I wasn't.  Only 1.16.5 remains.  I'm not sure which commit
removed it.

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim

Message #17 received at 67796 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Giovanni Biscuolo <g <at> xelera.eu>
To: Ekaitz Zarraga <ekaitz <at> elenq.tech>, 67796 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#67796: Automake is not compatible with older Autoconfs we
 provide
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 10:42:12 +0100

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

Hi Ekaitz

Ekaitz Zarraga <ekaitz <at> elenq.tech> writes:

> Hi,
>
> We have automake packaged, but it's not compatible with older autoconf 
> versions so autoconf is not very usable at this point.
>
> ```
> Ekaitz <at> tuxedo ~/projects/nlnet/gcc/libstdc++-v3 (riscv)$ guix shell 
> automake autoconf <at> 2.64

is there a reason you need to "pin" to the 2.64 version?

[...]

> configure.ac:74: error: Autoconf version 2.65 or higher is required

we now have autoconf-2.68 and -2.69 and autoconf is autoconf-2.69

does this solve the issue you reported?

Happy hacking, Gio'

-- 
Giovanni Biscuolo

Xelera IT Infrastructures

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #20 received at 67796 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ekaitz Zarraga <ekaitz <at> elenq.tech>
To: Giovanni Biscuolo <g <at> xelera.eu>, 67796 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#67796: Automake is not compatible with older Autoconfs we
 provide
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 11:40:31 +0100

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

Hi,

On 2024-01-11 10:42, Giovanni Biscuolo wrote:
> Hi Ekaitz
> 
> Ekaitz Zarraga <ekaitz <at> elenq.tech> writes:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> We have automake packaged, but it's not compatible with older autoconf
>> versions so autoconf is not very usable at this point.
>>
>> ```
>> Ekaitz <at> tuxedo ~/projects/nlnet/gcc/libstdc++-v3 (riscv)$ guix shell
>> automake autoconf <at> 2.64
> 
> is there a reason you need to "pin" to the 2.64 version?

I had one, I was working on GCC bootstrapping... It's not a big deal if 
we just remove the older versions.

The problem I wanted to make us notice is we were keeping the 2.64 
version and we didn't really provide any compatible automake, so the 
autoconf <at> 2.64 was almost useless.

If no package uses those, it's ok to remove. I can always time-machine 
around the problem.

Thanks!

[OpenPGP_0xB7994CF899720B26.asc (application/pgp-keys, attachment)]

[OpenPGP_signature (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #23 received at 67796 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Giovanni Biscuolo <g <at> xelera.eu>
To: Ekaitz Zarraga <ekaitz <at> elenq.tech>, 67796 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#67796: Automake is not compatible with older Autoconfs we
 provide
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 19:38:23 +0100

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

Hi,

Ekaitz Zarraga <ekaitz <at> elenq.tech> writes:

[...]

>>> We have automake packaged, but it's not compatible with older autoconf
>>> versions so autoconf is not very usable at this point.
>>>
>>> ```
>>> Ekaitz <at> tuxedo ~/projects/nlnet/gcc/libstdc++-v3 (riscv)$ guix shell
>>> automake autoconf <at> 2.64
>> 
>> is there a reason you need to "pin" to the 2.64 version?
>
> I had one, I was working on GCC bootstrapping...

oh OK :-)

> It's not a big deal if we just remove the older versions.

but if they are needed for bootstrapping they should be kept around, no?

> The problem I wanted to make us notice is we were keeping the 2.64 
> version and we didn't really provide any compatible automake, so the 
> autoconf <at> 2.64 was almost useless.

I'm not very familiar with Autoconf and Automake (nor with
bootstrapping): is there a "compatibility table" around?  I quickly had
a look to the respective manuals but I was not able to find one.

> If no package uses those, it's ok to remove. I can always time-machine 
> around the problem.

OK old packages can always (almost) be time-machined back but if they
are needed for bootstrapping (for sexample if your work on GCC
bootstrapping is succesful) they should be in Guix proper, no?

is this a bug? :-)

Thanks for your work! Gio'

-- 
Giovanni Biscuolo

Xelera IT Infrastructures

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #26 received at 67796 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ekaitz Zarraga <ekaitz <at> elenq.tech>
To: Giovanni Biscuolo <g <at> xelera.eu>, 67796 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#67796: Automake is not compatible with older Autoconfs we
 provide
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 19:53:01 +0100

Hi,


On 2024-01-12 19:38, Giovanni Biscuolo wrote:

>> It's not a big deal if we just remove the older versions.
> 
> but if they are needed for bootstrapping they should be kept around, no?

No, because they are not needed for the bootstrapping itself. We build 
stuff from scratch for it, I needed them to rebuild the configure 
scripts on GCC, which I don't need to rebuild anymore (GCC's codebase 
includes the configure scripts prebuilt). That's where I realized.

>> The problem I wanted to make us notice is we were keeping the 2.64
>> version and we didn't really provide any compatible automake, so the
>> autoconf <at> 2.64 was almost useless.
> 
> I'm not very familiar with Autoconf and Automake (nor with
> bootstrapping): is there a "compatibility table" around?  I quickly had
> a look to the respective manuals but I was not able to find one.

I don't know either. I tried to use the 2.64 one and that told me the 
Automake wasn't compatible.

>> If no package uses those, it's ok to remove. I can always time-machine
>> around the problem.
> 
> OK old packages can always (almost) be time-machined back but if they
> are needed for bootstrapping (for sexample if your work on GCC
> bootstrapping is succesful) they should be in Guix proper, no?
> 
> is this a bug? :-)

The problem in my opinion is including a 2.64 autoconf that we can't run 
actually use for the lack of a compatible automake. Not providing it is 
a better option. I don't need it for bootstrapping recipes, and if I 
need it in the future I'll remake the package.

If Autoconf 2.64 is not needed by any package my proposal is to remove 
it from Guix and let the people interested on it to `time-machine`, as 
that's going to probably have the correct automake with it.

> Thanks for your work! Gio'

Thank you!

Previous Next

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