Re: [PATCH] Fix compiling on CentOS 7.

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi!

Roel Janssen <address@hidden> skribis:

> Alex Kost writes:
>
>> Tomáš Čech (2016-08-27 09:57 +0300) wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 09:48:36PM +0200, Roel Janssen wrote:
>>>>Dear Guix,
>>>>
>>>>Due to an old Automake version (1.13), running the `./configure' phase on
>>>>CentOS 7 fails with:
>>>>
>>>>> autoreconf: running: automake --add-missing --copy --force-missing
>>>>> configure.ac:21: warning: The 'AM_PROG_MKDIR_P' macro is deprecated, and 
>>>>> its use is discouraged.
>>>>> configure.ac:21: You should use the Autoconf-provided 'AC_PROG_MKDIR_P' 
>>>>> macro instead,
>>>>> configure.ac:21: and use '$(MKDIR_P)' instead of '$(mkdir_p)'in your 
>>>>> Makefile.am files.
>>>>> Makefile.am:422: warning: AM_GNU_GETTEXT used but 'po' not in SUBDIRS
>>>>> automake: error: cannot open < ./%D%/guix.texi: No such file or directory
>>>>> autoreconf: automake failed with exit status: 1
>>>>
>>>>(It does not replace %D% with the appropriate directory..)
>>>>
>>>>The attached patch replaces each instance of %D%, which I believe stands
>>>>for the current subdirectory from the project root, with the appropriate
>>>>directory.  With these changes, I've been able to compile GNU Guix on
>>>>CentOS 7.
>>>>
>>>>I am not sure how this change impacts custom configure options, so I
>>>>would like to ask someone with more Automake knowledge and experience to
>>>>elaborate on the possible downsides of applying this patch.
>>>>
>>>>If this change is acceptable to the project, I will update the commit
>>>>message to a more detailed and conforming message.  Suggestions are
>>>>welcome here though.
>>>>
>>>>What do you think about making Guix compilable on this "stable"
>>>>distribution? :-)
>>>
>>> I'd prefer to keep this patch in CentOS (or similar distribution with
>>> outdated software) as distro specific. I can assume that CentOS 8
>>> won't need it and you can just drop it for newer releases.
>>
>> I also think this patch should stay on the CentOS side.  Roel, what you
>> suggest is a revert of commit c0d2e7b:
>>
>> http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/commit/?id=c0d2e7b197a3c511eb1bf60b61ee6fdc673e36f4
>
> Ha! I  hadn't seen that commit.  It is indeed a revert of this commit.
>
> Let me rephrase my thought:
> I don't see any good reason to break compatibility with well established
> distributions.  And the commit message does not state why a macro is
> better than spelling out the relative path.

Use of %D% was discussed here:

  https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2016-05/msg00641.html

In general, I’m in favor of using the latest build tools available (the
autotools), because I think it’s reasonable to ask developers to have
the latest available.  If needed, they can install the Guix binary
tarball and get the latest tools from there.

Now, I also agree that we don’t want to needlessly break compatibility.

This particular case looks borderline to me.  I’m in favor of the status
quo, at least to avoid all the merge conflicts that reverting would
entail, and because the workarounds that Tomáš and Florian suggest look
reasonable.

WDYT?

Ludo’.