Post B5WQk21kcF9isbaH3I by malwareminigun@infosec.exchange
(DIR) More posts by malwareminigun@infosec.exchange
(DIR) Post #B5GjywCfLCOLlE9Tlo by thephd@pony.social
1 likes, 0 repeats
@pinskia Idiot noob question about the Makefile.am in libstdc++-v3 --I edited the Makefile.am in the include/ dir, expecting that a "configure" invocation (from the root dir into a build dir or from libstdc++-v3/ into a different build dir) would rebuild the Makefile.in; but when I look at the Makefile.in in the repo after configure runs, my changes aren't reflected there.Am I just fucking stupid? How do I modify the set of installation headers for libstdc++-v3/include?
(DIR) Post #B5Gko7CMDmUCd7PXJQ by yuubi@furry.engineer
0 likes, 0 repeats
@thephd i think automake generates Makefile.in and configure, then ./configure reads foo.in and generates foo
(DIR) Post #B5GkqZW7u4cD2RpTEG by thephd@pony.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yuubi I figured configure would run automake where necessary but I guess not.
(DIR) Post #B5Gl2EHag7a8ejaZRw by thephd@pony.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
configure.ac:36: error: Please use exactly Autoconf 2.69 instead of 2.72.config/override.m4:12: _GCC_AUTOCONF_VERSION_CHECK is expanded from...configure.ac:36: the top levelautom4te: error: /usr/bin/m4 failed with exit status: 1automake: error: autoconf failed with exit status: 1Hm.Well. I guess I need to downgrade my stuff.
(DIR) Post #B5GlWqYuv9CS46ICxs by yuubi@furry.engineer
0 likes, 0 repeats
@thephd historical reasons strike again, and each time someone gets annoyed they add another layer? i forgot the autoconf layer, i think you get to run that too.there was makefile and maybe config.h or similar. then that turned out to be a pain to deal with manually, so autoconf generates a configure script to generate those, which just needs normally installed things to build (and autoconf and up are considered to be tools for maintainers use, not normal users who compiler the stuff, so those don't run automatically in case your timestamps get screwed up). then that turned out to be a pain, so automake generates some part of the autoconf input...
(DIR) Post #B5Gly03xhn2fLklGVs by jamesh@aus.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@thephd @pinskia Automake should generate rules to automatically regenerate those files when you invoke "make".You might have to pass --enable-maintainer-mode to configure to activate them if the project has used AM_MAINTAINER_MODE in their configure script.
(DIR) Post #B5GmOoG9hKKKYrFTGK by thephd@pony.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
Finally getting to run the script changes so many things that I actually think it's better for me to just surgically change what's needed and then say I "regenerated" it. The new run of automake changes like 18 different files that I did not touch at all.
(DIR) Post #B5Go56XmCwPFNxDqQy by thephd@pony.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
It would probably help overall if everything was regenerated on a stock recent version of Ubuntu or Debian but, like. I can't have that being part of this pull request.
(DIR) Post #B5GuNTaRs8Xhn1cEJk by malwareminigun@infosec.exchange
0 likes, 0 repeats
@thephd Thanks for underscoring exactly why Autotools is the worst of all worlds.Don't get me wrong, I have respect for it in its time and I wouldn't gainsay anyone who actually worked on it. But in the modern era it's just awful.
(DIR) Post #B5HEbLqhR7I0vd6ufI by wako@fosstodon.org
0 likes, 0 repeats
@thephd no you don't need to downgrade anything, just install the necessary versions in some other location and add it earlier in your PATH when regenerating GCC configs. You don't need to touch the existing versions you have.
(DIR) Post #B5HEg5u49KfivCwkjI by wako@fosstodon.org
0 likes, 0 repeats
@thephd if it changes so many things then you messed up (probably by running the wrong version and then not reverting the changes it made).
(DIR) Post #B5HF5w5pFLxW1allTM by wako@fosstodon.org
0 likes, 0 repeats
@thephd no it would not help, please don't waste your time doing that. There are changes in newer versions which aren't necessarily compatible with how GCC does things, so updating to newer versions of the tools needs to be carefully audited to check every change to every generated file across the whole GCC tree (and maybe coordinated with gdb and binutils). It's a major undertaking, not just "hey I updated everything for you, here's the patch".It's not just inertia.
(DIR) Post #B5WQk1phL3VyHDweGW by diegovsky@bolha.us
0 likes, 0 repeats
@malwareminigun @thephd auto tools just never worked for me, I simply gave up when I encountered any project that uses itat this point find + xargs + gcc might just be better fr
(DIR) Post #B5WQk21kcF9isbaH3I by malwareminigun@infosec.exchange
0 likes, 0 repeats
@diegovsky I agree that it's painful to get working but I also think the problems it was built to solve just aren't relevant in the modern era. I care about Windows, Linux, and macOS. I don't care about 40 different proprietary Unixes. Autotools is built to deal with the latter.
(DIR) Post #B5WQk2C201NZOUOU4m by diegovsky@bolha.us
0 likes, 0 repeats
@malwareminigun not sure why my autocorrect butchered so much of what I wrote.in any case, I totally agree!though autotools could use a good refactor to improve its user friendliness while still remaining compatible to those unices as it seems it's an important goal for GNU
(DIR) Post #B5WQk2KXUOBVosNHKy by malwareminigun@infosec.exchange
0 likes, 0 repeats
@diegovsky Look GNU fans aren't going to like it but I think Kitware already wrote that system
(DIR) Post #B5WQk2WEmtXgP9qcZU by uecker@mastodon.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@malwareminigun @diegovsky I hate autotools, but I think Cmake is worse.
(DIR) Post #B5WQk2f6FwdCqdzhNw by mirabilos@toot.mirbsd.org
0 likes, 0 repeats
@malwareminigun @diegovsky @uecker it is
(DIR) Post #B5WQoT6BuF6k00mCeW by malwareminigun@infosec.exchange
0 likes, 0 repeats
@uecker @diegovsky They both have ugly syntax, they both have decades of jank, they both are full of warts, but one is a pile of shell scripts that falls over if you have the audacity to use a space in a path and the other cares about platforms customers actually use.I'm not saying I love CMake. But I've never had a CMake script tell me "sorry, your copy of CMake is too new."
(DIR) Post #B5WQoTF3NICGRUvHSy by mirabilos@toot.mirbsd.org
0 likes, 0 repeats
@uecker @malwareminigun @diegovsky uh, happened to me twice in the last year, in the same package at thatand cmake cannot even install manpages 😹
(DIR) Post #B5WQrxNhlzScmsdEwK by uecker@mastodon.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@malwareminigun @diegovsky Just anecdotal, but CMake wasted a lot more of my time trying to fix random build errors that provide no useful information about what is actually wrong. Whether is actually needed to support Windows, I am not sure, but yes, this is the excuse.
(DIR) Post #B5WQrxhuYrcjnY5NR2 by malwareminigun@infosec.exchange
0 likes, 0 repeats
@uecker @diegovsky I have spent *more* time fighting with CMake but mostly as a function of it being used close to 100x as often.
(DIR) Post #B5WQrxtbrMyuNpYifY by uecker@mastodon.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@malwareminigun @diegovsky We live in different worlds. From 10k packages I just built, for 5k the build logs mention a 'configure' script while 3k mention 'CMake'.
(DIR) Post #B5WQry6N5vBp1PWuYq by malwareminigun@infosec.exchange
0 likes, 0 repeats
@uecker @diegovsky Ha! @meetingcpp survey question about this
(DIR) Post #B5WQryJ8KTOjezV6S8 by uecker@mastodon.social
0 likes, 1 repeats
@malwareminigun @diegovsky @meetingcpp I didn't realize C++ programmers are that crazy. 😜