|

Use of gnulib's cfg.mk

View: New views

6 Messages — Rating Filter: Alert me

	Use of gnulib's cfg.mk by Reuben Thomas :: Rate this Message: \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message I see that gnulib has its own cfg.mk which is used, for example, to skip some syntax-check checks on gnulib's own code. It also has its own Makefile.am. In GNU Zile I get these by virtue of having gnulib as a git submodule. However, GNU Hello uses Bazaar, and I can't see a way to include a git submodule. How do I get these files using just gnulib-tool? For example, I can't see that gnulib's cfg.mk is mentioned by any module. hello stores all its gnulib files under TOPLEVEL/gnulib, but currently adds "gnulib/lib" to its top-level Makefile.am's SUBDIRS; presumably I want to change that to just "gnulib". -- http://rrt.sc3d.org
	Re: Use of gnulib's cfg.mk by Bruno Haible :: Rate this Message: \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Reuben Thomas wrote: > I see that gnulib has its own cfg.mk which is used, for example, to > skip some syntax-check checks on gnulib's own code. > ... > I can't see that gnulib's cfg.mk is mentioned by any module. Yes, $ ./gnulib-tool --find cfg.mk shows that cfg.mk is not contained in any module. This is because it describes syntax rules for the gnulib source code, not for the Zile or Hello source code. You are supposed to use a cfg.mk file of your own in Zile or Hello. > It also has its own Makefile.am. No, gnulib does not have a Makefile.am. It has a couple of Makefiles, though. They are also not meant to be copied into your package. > I can't see a way to include a git submodule. How do I get these files > using just gnulib-tool? gnulib-tool has an option --copy-file that can retrieve a single file out of the gnulib repository, independently of any modules. It's sometimes useful for config.guess and config.sub. But please think twice before using it! Bruno
	Re: Use of gnulib's cfg.mk by Reuben Thomas :: Rate this Message: \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message On 14 April 2012 19:44, Bruno Haible <bruno@...> wrote: > Reuben Thomas wrote: >> I see that gnulib has its own cfg.mk which is used, for example, to >> skip some syntax-check checks on gnulib's own code. >> ... >> I can't see that gnulib's cfg.mk is mentioned by any module. > > Yes, > $ ./gnulib-tool --find cfg.mk > shows that cfg.mk is not contained in any module. This is because it > describes syntax rules for the gnulib source code, not for the Zile > or Hello source code. OK, I'm obviously misunderstanding how Zile escapes performing the syntax checks on files in gnulib. -- http://rrt.sc3d.org
	Re: Use of gnulib's cfg.mk by Reuben Thomas :: Rate this Message: \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message On 14 April 2012 20:17, Reuben Thomas <rrt@...> wrote: > On 14 April 2012 19:44, Bruno Haible <bruno@...> wrote: >> Reuben Thomas wrote: >>> I see that gnulib has its own cfg.mk which is used, for example, to >>> skip some syntax-check checks on gnulib's own code. >>> ... >>> I can't see that gnulib's cfg.mk is mentioned by any module. >> >> Yes, >> $ ./gnulib-tool --find cfg.mk >> shows that cfg.mk is not contained in any module. This is because it >> describes syntax rules for the gnulib source code, not for the Zile >> or Hello source code. > > OK, I'm obviously misunderstanding how Zile escapes performing the > syntax checks on files in gnulib. On further investigation, my question reduces to the following: what is the standard way to exclude gnulib files from inappropriate syntax-check tests? As far as I can see, copying parts of gnulib/cfg.mk into one's project's cfg.mk is the obvious way, but it's a bit surprising that something like this doesn't happen automatically, since other autotools integration is managed automatically. -- http://rrt.sc3d.org
	Re: Use of gnulib's cfg.mk by Jim Meyering :: Rate this Message: \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Reuben Thomas wrote: > On 14 April 2012 20:17, Reuben Thomas <rrt@...> wrote: >> On 14 April 2012 19:44, Bruno Haible <bruno@...> wrote: >>> Reuben Thomas wrote: >>>> I see that gnulib has its own cfg.mk which is used, for example, to >>>> skip some syntax-check checks on gnulib's own code. >>>> ... >>>> I can't see that gnulib's cfg.mk is mentioned by any module. >>> >>> Yes, >>> $ ./gnulib-tool --find cfg.mk >>> shows that cfg.mk is not contained in any module. This is because it >>> describes syntax rules for the gnulib source code, not for the Zile >>> or Hello source code. >> >> OK, I'm obviously misunderstanding how Zile escapes performing the >> syntax checks on files in gnulib. The syntax checks check only version-controlled files, which does not include files in git submodules.
	Re: version controlled files by Bruno Haible :: Rate this Message: \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Hello Reuben, Jim Meyering wrote: > The syntax checks check only version-controlled files, > which does not include files in git submodules. Maybe the problem is that in GNU Hello, files copied from gnulib are added to version control [1]? While that is a possible way to work with gnulib, it is not the mainstream one. For me, it has become too much work to 'add', 'remove', 'commit' lots of new files each time something changed in gnulib. For my projects, I classified the files into 7 categories and decided about their version control separately: - Source - gnulib-cache.m4 - Brought in by autotools, gnulib-tool - Generated by autotools - Generated by "make" and distributed (i.e. kept by "make distclean") - Generated by "make" and not distributed (i.e. erased by "make distclean") - Editor backup files For most of the projects, the files are handled like this: in in Committed .gitignore .git/info/exclude Source Y N N gnulib-cache.m4 Y N N Brought in by autotools, N Y N gnulib-tool Generated by autotools N Y N Generated by "make" and N Y N distributed (i.e. kept by "make distclean") Generated by "make" and N N Y not distributed (i.e. erased by "make distclean") Editor backup files N Y N Only in one project, which has no autogen.sh file and is very rarely modified, I am putting files brought in by autotools or gnulib-tool under version control: in in Committed .gitignore .git/info/exclude Source Y N N gnulib-cache.m4 Y N N Brought in by autotools, Y N N gnulib-tool Generated by autotools Y N N Generated by "make" and Y N N distributed (i.e. kept by "make distclean") Generated by "make" and N N Y not distributed (i.e. erased by "make distclean") Editor backup files N N Y In this situation, the objective is that the user only needs a checkout. He can build directly through "./configure; make". But as soon as you have an 'autogen.sh' file, you can get away with much less files under version control. Bruno [1] http://bzr.savannah.gnu.org/lh/hello/trunk/files/head: