Re: Autotools-generated 'configure' & 'Makefile.in' considered binaries?

[Liliana Marie Prikler]

Am Mittwoch, dem 30.03.2022 um 21:24 +0200 schrieb Maxime Devos:
> Liliana Marie Prikler schreef op wo 30-03-2022 om 20:55 [+0200]:
> > Note that many autotools-based packages already require the
> > addition of autoconf and friends due to being pulled from git. 
> > That being said, it's somewhat hard to argue for completely
> > dropping them, because
> > a. simply matching files via ".in" suffix would be error-prone
> > b. autoreconf should regenerate these files regardless
> > Therefore, my counter-proposal would be to just simply always run
> > the bootstrap script or autoreconf, even if the respective files
> > are tarballed, as well as adding autoconf and automake to the
> > implicit native inputs of gnu build system.
> 
> It should be possible to look for ‘# Generated by GNU Autoconf’ and
> ‘# Makefile.in generated by automake’ lines in some 'find-generated-
> autotools-fies’or something.
I don't think that will work correctly.  Case in point: pre-inst-env in
the Guix source tree.

> Adding autoconf & automake seems a bit much to me (gnu-build-system
> is not necessarily autotools-build-system, the exact required version
> of autoconf & automake can vary), but otherwise your proposal seems
> good to me.
We could drop both from the deriving system or simply define a constant
%implicit-gnu-inputs-no-autotools (name subject to bikeshedding).