Re: a saner bootstrap script

[Pádraig Brady]

On 10/06/2011 09:28 AM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> Hi Pádraig,
> 
> On 6 Oct 2011, at 14:58, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>> Thanks for the improvements.
> 
> You're most welcome!
> 
>> We're about to do a coreutils release, so I'm thinking
>> these changes might go in after that
>> so we can test thoroughly.
> 
> Yes, that would be safest, I think.  The coreutils bootstrap is
> more complex than most, and deserves some extra care.
> 
>> A few comments on the new bootstrap.conf
>>
>> You seem to have synced against an old version of buildreq
>> which didn't have autotools or gettext listed.
>> But that old version also had autopoint which you dropped?
> 
> That's deliberate:
> 
> On 6 Oct 2011, at 07:18, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
>> The buildreq variable is a table that now also includes a column for the 
>> homepage of
>> any requirements so that the error message can inform the user where to 
>> fetch any
>> missing prerequisites.
>>
>> Note also that autoconf, automake, libtool and gettext are added 
>> automagically as long
>> as they are referenced in configure.ac, so they are not listed manually.  If 
>> you run
>> bootstrap with the verbose option, you can see them being detected and added.

Cool, that's a good improvement.
The only caveat is the table is easier to manage,
but less instructive as documentation.
This is the right trade-off though I think.

> Mind you, autopoint and gettext are synonymous, right?  If not, only the 
> gettext-0.18.1
> check is made automatically, and I need to figure out the right way to also 
> check for
> autopoint.

They're in different packages on my system:

$ rpm -qf $(which autopoint)
gettext-devel-0.18.1.1-7.fc15.x86_64
$ rpm -qf $(which gettext)
gettext-0.18.1.1-7.fc15.x86_64

So maybe an explicit table entry is appropriate?

cheers,
Pádraig.