On 10/06/2011 09:28 AM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: > Hi Pádraig, > > On 6 Oct 2011, at 14:58, Pádraig Brady wrote: >> Thanks for the improvements. > > You're most welcome! > >> We're about to do a coreutils release, so I'm thinking >> these changes might go in after that >> so we can test thoroughly. > > Yes, that would be safest, I think. The coreutils bootstrap is > more complex than most, and deserves some extra care. > >> A few comments on the new bootstrap.conf >> >> You seem to have synced against an old version of buildreq >> which didn't have autotools or gettext listed. >> But that old version also had autopoint which you dropped? > > That's deliberate: > > On 6 Oct 2011, at 07:18, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: >> The buildreq variable is a table that now also includes a column for the >> homepage of >> any requirements so that the error message can inform the user where to >> fetch any >> missing prerequisites. >> >> Note also that autoconf, automake, libtool and gettext are added >> automagically as long >> as they are referenced in configure.ac, so they are not listed manually. If >> you run >> bootstrap with the verbose option, you can see them being detected and added.
Cool, that's a good improvement. The only caveat is the table is easier to manage, but less instructive as documentation. This is the right trade-off though I think. > Mind you, autopoint and gettext are synonymous, right? If not, only the > gettext-0.18.1 > check is made automatically, and I need to figure out the right way to also > check for > autopoint. They're in different packages on my system: $ rpm -qf $(which autopoint) gettext-devel-0.18.1.1-7.fc15.x86_64 $ rpm -qf $(which gettext) gettext-0.18.1.1-7.fc15.x86_64 So maybe an explicit table entry is appropriate? cheers, Pádraig.
