Hi Jim, On 5 Oct 2011, at 00:16, Jim Meyering wrote: > Gary V. Vaughan wrote: >> On 4 Oct 2011, at 17:09, Jim Meyering wrote: >>> Do you feel like rebasing it? >> >> Sure, although it will take me a few days to find the time - is that because >> you're planning to adopt my bootstrap script into coreutils master >> unilaterally? >> If not then you can easily checkout my coreutils snapshot from github to >> verify >> that it is perfectly sane. >> >> Really, I'm trying to help gnulib to adopt the script first and foremost... >> although the last few Zile releases have been using it, and I'll be making >> a Libtool release in the next week or so that uses it irrespective of gnulib >> adoption. And I expect I'll also put an M4 alpha out with that script too >> before long. So, if you want to unilaterally take the script into coreutils >> too, then I'll be very happy to provide any assistance I can with updating >> the coreutils bootstrap.conf I wrote all those months ago. > > I'm trying it solely because you've invested so much in it and asked so > many times. I'm certainly not chomping at the bit for a new version.
I understand, and appreciate you're making that effort. Thank you! > However, I confess that I was disappointed by your rejection of some of > the style-related suggestions made by Stefano, and have to say that if I > do use it, the copy I use in coreutils, grep, gzip, patch, parted, etc. > will inherit most, if not all, of his suggestions. I'm not at all opposed to style changes by other committers subsequent to adopting the script into gnulib, and I even volunteered to make the changes myself if not doing so proved to be a barrier to acceptance. But, unless I have to do it, I'd rather not spend my time changing my code out of the coding style I prefer. Of course, if the thing is accepted into gnulib then my personal preferences carry far less weight, and I understand perfectly if the script is edited into whatever style gnulib developers prefer. >>>> I just tried to check that everything in my coreutils bootstrap.conf still >>>> works correctly with coreutils master, but unfortunately coreutils >>>> bootstrap >>>> now requires that I install the latest autotools -- including >>>> gettext-0.18.1.1 >>>> which doesn't compile on Mac OS 10.7.1 with the latest Apple supplied gcc >>>> (4.2.1 LLVM). And without that, I can no longer bootstrap coreutils on my >>>> Mac :-( >>> >>> If it's a gettext problem, report it and it should be fixed very quickly. >>> Otherwise, just adjust the AM_GNU_GETTEXT_VERSION([0.18.1]) line >>> in configure.ac to accommodate whatever version of gettext you have. >>> You should be ok if it's 0.17.x. >> >> If an older version of gettext is sufficient, then can you please require >> that version instead? Gettext is a large complex package that is quite a > > Using an older version is sufficient to ensure that your script works > with coreutils. I don't see why everyone should accept an older version > just because a build-glitch affects one type of system. The work-around > is trivial. Maybe I misunderstand AM_GNU_GETTEXT_VERSION then? I thought that it was to document the minimum compatible version like AC_PREREQ, not to enforce a specific version. (Forgive my ignorance: I'm not really a gettext user since English is my only language, so gettext is just another dependency I have to build to keep the packages I do use happy, and even then I always build with --disable-nls to minimise installation of files I'll never use.) >> At least as far as Mac OS 10.7 is concerned, I tracked the problem down to >> a bug in the gnulib non-release that was used to bootstrap gettext-0.18.1.1, >> which has since been fixed in gnulib. > > Again, did you report it? Yes, I did. Both on this list and at bug-gnu-gettext, along with a pointer to the MacPorts patch that got me past the bug. >> I haven't had time yet to pick up the coreutils bootstrap.conf update, but >> I'll probably be able to get to it by the end of the week. If you're in a >> hurry, then I think you might find writing your own updated bootstrap.conf >> would be instructive in the vast improvements I think the new bootstrap I've >> written brings to the table - and maybe help build enough confidence in it >> that you'd like to help me adopt it into upstream gnulib? > > If I go with it, it will eventually gain at least 10 new client packages. > However, I don't have a lot of time to invest in the transition, > so anything you can do to make it easier may go a long way. And that alone will be a big vote of confidence toward my goal of having it adopted into gnulib in place of the existing script. I'll ping this thread when I've finished the update. Cheers, -- Gary V. Vaughan (gary AT gnu DOT org)
