On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 at 09:28, Ondrej Dubaj <odu...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hello, > > Thank you for your suggestions, but as you might understand, I do not have > the capacity to resolve problems of dependent packages when building with > autoconf-2.71. > As I wrote so far I found only two packages which are not ac 2.71 compliant which I've not been able to fix by adding a simple patch. IMO fixing found issues before f35 dev cycle is doable and can be finished without strain on anyone's capacity. In most of the cases people are not solving some issues because they don't know that actually it is some issue. In other words only pointing to/encircling the issues sometimes (IMO) it is +95% of success that issue will be solved quickly. it is another issue with Fedora that detecting such issues on massive scale could be a bit tricky because for some reasons instead fixing libtool and automake with explicit calling "autoreconf -fiv" before %configure JFDI/JFDIN approach has been chosen to fiddle in some ac/am/lt files. You can see that JFDI on https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/redhat-rpm-config/blob/rawhide/f/macros#_191 However by building all fedora packages only to check is package X still building or not by executing something like "rpmbuild -bc -D "_configure `autoreconf -fiv; configure' <package>.spec" should be possible to probe probably +~98% cases when autoconf 2.71 may fail. .. ~+98% because in some cases %configure macro is used in spec file and in reality autoconf is not used in the exact source tree or because in some spec files %_configure macro is redefined and above commandline redefinition may collide with that. Such experiments can be done on copr builders. Probably similar experiments on the scale of all fedora packages are already done probably more than one time each month. So as you may already see *diagnosing *which Fedora packages are not ac 2.71 compliant it is *not *beyond anyone capacity .. because checking the whole distro against ac 2.71 effectively can be done by executing a single oneliner. At least after such a diag test build the exact list of problematic packages can be formed. Such list published will put enough/gentle pressure on exact source trees maintainer to fix such issues ASAP :P Those two packages which I've mention (gettext and openldap) I found by testing so far below number of packages: [tkloczko@barrel SPECS]$ grep "^autoreconf -fiv" *spec | wc -l 862 Initially there were more than two failing packages however only those two (gettext and openldap) did not end up with submitting MR/PR (in a few cases in the meantime new versions with merged fixes have been released). And yet another side comment. Necessary fix for ac 2.71 only if correctly done definitely will not break using source tree with ac 2.69. kloczek -- Tomasz Kłoczko | LinkedIn: http://lnkd.in/FXPWxH
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
