User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

KS2011: Afternoon topics

KS2011: Afternoon topics

Posted Oct 28, 2011 10:27 UTC (Fri) by Rudd-O (guest, #61155)
In reply to: KS2011: Afternoon topics by nix
Parent article: KS2011: Afternoon topics

waf fixes all your complaints about scons.

the only problem with waf is that the documentation is arcane and the code even more so.

but those are problems with the autocrap too, so nothing new there.


(Log in to post comments)

KS2011: Afternoon topics

Posted Oct 28, 2011 11:33 UTC (Fri) by josh (subscriber, #17465) [Link]

waf also encourages projects to copy waf into their source tree, a nightmare for distro maintainers.

KS2011: Afternoon topics

Posted Oct 30, 2011 17:20 UTC (Sun) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]

I don't see how it's any worse than autotools, which does pretty much the same thing. Some distros try to have a "always rerun automake/autoconf" rule, but that frequently runs into problems because of version incompatibilities.

I'm sure a similar rule could be made for waf-using packages, with similarly problematic results.

KS2011: Afternoon topics

Posted Oct 30, 2011 18:12 UTC (Sun) by josh (subscriber, #17465) [Link]

Automake has remained mostly backward compatible since after 1.4. waf makes no guarantees whatsoever, and replacing the version of waf included in a package requires much more work.

KS2011: Afternoon topics

Posted Oct 30, 2011 21:31 UTC (Sun) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]

> Automake has remained mostly backward compatible since after 1.4

Yet, it's still necessary for Debian to include automake 1.4, 1.7, 1.9, 1.10, and 1.11, and autoconf 2.13, 2.59, 2.64, and 2.67.

If it were that easy to upgrade, I'd expect that everything would've been converted to at least automake 1.10 by now (which came out in 2006).

KS2011: Afternoon topics

Posted Oct 30, 2011 23:11 UTC (Sun) by cortana (subscriber, #24596) [Link]

Are those old autoconf/automake packages shipped in order to resolve build-dependencies for other packages in the archive, or are they shipped so that end users can still build their software which may be less well-maintained than your typical open source project?

KS2011: Afternoon topics

Posted Nov 1, 2011 2:42 UTC (Tue) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]

> Are those old autoconf/automake packages shipped in order to resolve build-dependencies for other packages in the archive

Yes. Some reference material.

http://lists.debian.org/debian-qa/2011/03/msg00039.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/10/msg00373.html

KS2011: Afternoon topics

Posted Nov 4, 2011 0:36 UTC (Fri) by geofft (subscriber, #59789) [Link]

Debian includes those because there hasn't been a huge reason not to. There's been discussion about removing some of them, and some thoughts about removing 1.4 -- it's definitely only in Debian for users' convenience, not because other things in Debian depend on it.

KS2011: Afternoon topics

Posted Nov 7, 2011 0:23 UTC (Mon) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]

Nope, still not unused: there's 3 packages remaining build-depending on it in unstable, down from 30 in lenny and 8 in squeeze. (counting packages in main only). And of course that's not looking at packages whose maintainers aren't calling automake at all, but are shipping pre-built files generated with automake 1.4.


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds