[bug#46564] [PATCH core-updates]: Use autoconf-wrapper instead of autoconf

[Maxime Devos]

Hi,

On Sun, 2021-02-21 at 23:05 +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> [...]
> 
> Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be> skribis:
> 
> > This patch replaces autoconf with autoconf-wrapped in the native-inputs
> > almost everywhere (except for some packages in
> > gnu/packages/autotools.scm).  As this would cause many rebuilds, this
> > patch targets the "core-updates" branch and not "master".
> 
> OK.

The revised patch targets master, as less packages were changed
(changing the definition of libuv should be done on core-updates).

> > A wine package has autoconf in the inputs instead of native-inputs,
> > I wonder if that's intentional or a bug?  I left that package untouched
> > for now.
> 
> I think that’s a bug.
> 
> > Why this change? [...]
> Yeah, I’m not sure this is a worthy goal.
> 
> > Why not?
> [...]
> Yeah.  I would be in favor of unifying things the other way around:
> using ‘autoconf’ instead of ‘autoconf-wrapper’ everywhere.  Since
> there’s the ‘patch-shebangs’ phase, we don’t need ‘autoconf-wrapper’.

I've attached a patch that unifies things the other way around.

> There’s one exception I think: Automake.  This one needs
> ‘autoconf-wrapper’ so it can actually run its test suite.  Perhaps
> Libtool too.

Some other packages fail to build without autoconf-wrapper as well.
Some packages run './configure' from 'autogen.sh' or from the Makefile.
I added a little explanation to each package that actually needs
autoconf-wrapper, and discouraged new uses of autoconf-wrapper with
a comment next to the definition of autoconf-wrapper.

WDYT?

Maxime.

0001-gnu-Use-autoconf-instead-of-autoconf-wrapper-when-po.patch
Description: Text Data

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part