Re: [bug#31076] gnurl 7.59.0

Re: [bug#31076] gnurl 7.59.0

[Nils Gillmann]

Ludovic Courtès transcribed 474 bytes:
> Hi,
> 
> Nils Gillmann <ng0@n0.is> skribis:
> 
> > Seems like ftp.gnu.org is currently either very slow or having troubles
> > with the actual software distribution. The signatures landed on there,
> > the rest has yet to materialize.
> 
> I think you made a mistake:
> 
>    gnurl-7.59.0.tar.gz.sig
>    gnurl-7.59.0.tar.gz.sig.sig
> 
> You’ll have to reupload without the extra .sig.  :-)

There were (are?) some issues on FTP side, they applied my new key
before realizing my new is too recent for their gpg. I'm currently
waiting on the result of the thread about this.
Furthermore it seems like the system can not cope very well with
anything that is not gpg and uses .sig ;) My signify signatures are
.sig, my gpg signatures are .asc ..
Anyway, we have to resolve some issues and archive some files in our
directory.

Thanks :)

> I’ve applied the patch since there’s a fallback URL anyway.
> 
> Thanks,
> Ludo’.

I'm looking into switching gnurl to bmake + mk-config. I've already got the
tools on my side.
Do you want me to continue the native autotools support for Guix in gnurl,
derived from curl? Or would it be okay to switch guix over to bmake +
mk-config if it works out for gnurl?

I'm asking because I could manage to support 2 build-system, it just would
be a bit unconvenient for me.

Re: [bug#31076] gnurl 7.59.0

[Nils Gillmann]

Nils Gillmann transcribed 1.3K bytes:
> Ludovic Courtès transcribed 474 bytes:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Nils Gillmann <ng0@n0.is> skribis:
> > 
> > > Seems like ftp.gnu.org is currently either very slow or having troubles
> > > with the actual software distribution. The signatures landed on there,
> > > the rest has yet to materialize.
> > 
> > I think you made a mistake:
> > 
> >    gnurl-7.59.0.tar.gz.sig
> >    gnurl-7.59.0.tar.gz.sig.sig
> > 
> > You’ll have to reupload without the extra .sig.  :-)
> 
> There were (are?) some issues on FTP side, they applied my new key
> before realizing my new is too recent for their gpg. I'm currently
> waiting on the result of the thread about this.
> Furthermore it seems like the system can not cope very well with
> anything that is not gpg and uses .sig ;) My signify signatures are
> .sig, my gpg signatures are .asc ..
> Anyway, we have to resolve some issues and archive some files in our
> directory.
> 
> Thanks :)
> 
> > I’ve applied the patch since there’s a fallback URL anyway.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Ludo’.
> 
> I'm looking into switching gnurl to bmake + mk-config. I've already got the
> tools on my side.
> Do you want me to continue the native autotools support for Guix in gnurl,
> derived from curl? Or would it be okay to switch guix over to bmake +
> mk-config if it works out for gnurl?
> 
> I'm asking because I could manage to support 2 build-system, it just would
> be a bit unconvenient for me.

Correction: I noticed this will make building gnurl unpleasant on guix side.
I would have to introduce the bmake + mk + the bootstrapping of bmake without
make in the build system I'm currently working on.. in Guix, which is something
I'm pretty sure will not be taken into master.

Alternative: a simple bmake using the gnu-build-system (and therefore depending
on make deeper down the graph) would be accepted I guess?

Re: [bug#31076] gnurl 7.59.0

[Ricardo Wurmus]

Nils Gillmann <ng0@n0.is> writes:

>> I'm looking into switching gnurl to bmake + mk-config. I've already got the
>> tools on my side.
>> Do you want me to continue the native autotools support for Guix in gnurl,
>> derived from curl? Or would it be okay to switch guix over to bmake +
>> mk-config if it works out for gnurl?
>>
>> I'm asking because I could manage to support 2 build-system, it just would
>> be a bit unconvenient for me.
>
> Correction: I noticed this will make building gnurl unpleasant on guix side.
> I would have to introduce the bmake + mk + the bootstrapping of bmake without
> make in the build system I'm currently working on.. in Guix, which is something
> I'm pretty sure will not be taken into master.
>
> Alternative: a simple bmake using the gnu-build-system (and therefore depending
> on make deeper down the graph) would be accepted I guess?

What is the purpose of swapping out the build system?  I thought gnurl
is not supposed to be a project in its own right, so making gratuitous
changes to the build system seems like it wouldn’t be in scope.  It also
sounds like it would *add* dependencies purely for another build system,
even though a perfectly adequate build system already exists.

--
Ricardo

Re: [bug#31076] gnurl 7.59.0

[Nils Gillmann]

Ricardo Wurmus transcribed 1.2K bytes:
> 
> Nils Gillmann <ng0@n0.is> writes:
> 
> >> I'm looking into switching gnurl to bmake + mk-config. I've already got the
> >> tools on my side.
> >> Do you want me to continue the native autotools support for Guix in gnurl,
> >> derived from curl? Or would it be okay to switch guix over to bmake +
> >> mk-config if it works out for gnurl?
> >>
> >> I'm asking because I could manage to support 2 build-system, it just would
> >> be a bit unconvenient for me.
> >
> > Correction: I noticed this will make building gnurl unpleasant on guix side.
> > I would have to introduce the bmake + mk + the bootstrapping of bmake without
> > make in the build system I'm currently working on.. in Guix, which is something
> > I'm pretty sure will not be taken into master.
> >
> > Alternative: a simple bmake using the gnu-build-system (and therefore depending
> > on make deeper down the graph) would be accepted I guess?
> 
> What is the purpose of swapping out the build system?  I thought gnurl
> is not supposed to be a project in its own right, so making gratuitous
> changes to the build system seems like it wouldn’t be in scope.  It also
> sounds like it would *add* dependencies purely for another build system,
> even though a perfectly adequate build system already exists.

It is a project on its own for GNUnet and Taler. The amount of changes that went into
the build system specifically lead to merges being easy to make but an annoying pain
to check and merge.
Furthermore gnurl does not target the same obscure amount of platforms curl does, so
if I implement this, it will be just if it makes my life easier in the long run.
The fork in the code in gnurl from the beginning on was in the build-system of curl.

In theory I could revert my changes  to the build system I made and maintain my own
set of build system files in the source, potentially decreasing merge time from now
around 15 - 120+ minutes to simply applying changes that happened in curl without
re-running my merge scripts.

> --
> Ricardo
> 
>