[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: bootstrap/autogen.sh and git submodules
From: |
Gary V. Vaughan |
Subject: |
Re: bootstrap/autogen.sh and git submodules |
Date: |
Sun, 3 Mar 2019 11:01:35 -0800 |
> On Mar 3, 2019, at 10:03 AM, Bruno Haible <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> When gnulib is used in a package, often the maintainers of that package
> use it via a git submodule, because that enables them to upgrade to newer
> versions of gnulib when they want to (and have a failsafe build between
> these upgrades), rather than having to adapt to gnulib changes at any moment.
> Even if it's only the imported file list which has changed, which might
> require an update to the package's .gitignore file.
>
> The use of git submodules, however, has three problems:
>
> 1) There are two use-cases of bootstrap/autogen.sh (the name does not
> matter):
> - first-time checkout and build of the sources,
> - repeated build, possibly after modifying something in the submodule.
> Currently bootstrap is optimized for the first one, and requires clumsy
> recipes for the second one. Such as:
> $ GNULIB_SRCDIR=`pwd`/gnulib ./autogen.sh --no-git
>
> 2) A submodule has to be upgraded occasionally. bootstrap/autogen.sh does
> not help doing this. I have to keep a command in a cheat-sheet:
> $ (cd gnulib && git fetch && git merge origin/master); git add gnulib
>
> 3) As can be seen in the recent thread, there is considerable disagreement
> regarding the handling of git submodules. Akim wants a fatal error when
> some git submodules have not been initialized, whereas Tim hates this.
>
> I would propose to split the common bootstrap or autogen.sh into two
> programs that can be invoked independently:
>
> 1. A program that deals only with the git submodules.
> 2. A program that only generates files (or, regarding PO files, fetches
> files that are not kept in git).
>
> The developer should have the ability to set an environment variable
> (GNULIB_SRCDIR or GNULIB_TOOL), to be used by both programs.
>
> Advantages:
> - Developers can test modified gnulib sources without running through
> hoops.
> - Developers will have an easy way to upgrade to a newer gnulib version.
> - Different project policies regarding submodules are isolated in one place
> and thus have no influence on the gnulib-tool invocation, the PO file
> handling, etc.
>
> Disadvantages:
> - The README-HACKING file will have to list two commands instead of one,
> for the first-time checkout.
>
> What's your opinion?
>
> I'd like to hear your voices, before I modify the autogen.sh scripts that
> I maintain. I won't touch 'bootstrap' (not my domain).
>
> Bruno
Hi Bruno,
It’s been so long since I maintained a gnulib client project that I feel barely
qualified to offer an opinion here... I’m likely misunderstanding the question.
I don’t even know what ./autogen.sh is for?
But answering as best I can purely for completeness’ sake, and assuming my
memory is behaving well, I found using my bootstrap rewrite alone (usually with
additional function overrides or wrappers in bootstrap.conf) to be entirely
sufficient for:
1. running on a freshly cloned working copy to set everything up ready for
./configure && make
2. rebootstrapping after updating submodules
3. regenerating itself from an updated gnulib-modules/bootstrap submodule from
time to time
Even so, after the Makefiles were configured, even editing autotools input
files would not require rebootstrapping, so I really only needed to run
bootstrap a few times per year per project when updated Automake on my laptop
or gnulib submodule hashref in a working copy or similar. This is totally
acceptable from my perspective, and doesn’t require any additional tooling or
driver scripts.
Cheers,
Gary