[PATCH] distro: automake: Update to 1.12.6

[PATCH] distro: automake: Update to 1.12.6

[Andreas Enge]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 40 bytes --]

A tiny update to core-updates.

Andreas

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 961 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: 0012-distro-automake-Update-to-1.12.6.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 1167 bytes --]

From cc6fb8577e5e3dc8f52bc53a69249517e22c5576 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr>
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 00:25:18 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 12/12] distro: automake: Update to 1.12.6.

* distro/packages/autotools.scm (automake): Update to 1.12.6.
---
 distro/packages/autotools.scm |    4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/distro/packages/autotools.scm b/distro/packages/autotools.scm
index 171855b..fa4ff90 100644
--- a/distro/packages/autotools.scm
+++ b/distro/packages/autotools.scm
@@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ can use, in the form of M4 macro calls.")
 (define-public automake
   (package
     (name "automake")
-    (version "1.12.5")
+    (version "1.12.6")
     (source
      (origin
       (method url-fetch)
@@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ can use, in the form of M4 macro calls.")
                           version ".tar.xz"))
       (sha256
        (base32
-        "1k4pa3rmj626n5d39rc9041dc71lv8nzd341k53dw07iflkwinim"))))
+        "1ynvca8z4aqcwr94rf7j1bfiid2w9w250y9qhnyj9vmi8lhsnd7q"))))
     (build-system gnu-build-system)
     (inputs
      `(("autoconf" ,autoconf)
-- 
1.7.10.4

Re: [PATCH] distro: automake: Update to 1.12.6

[Ludovic Courtès]

Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> skribis:

> A tiny update to core-updates.

It’s OK for master since it doesn’t trigger a rebuild of the core tools.

> From cc6fb8577e5e3dc8f52bc53a69249517e22c5576 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr>
> Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 00:25:18 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH 12/12] distro: automake: Update to 1.12.6.
>
> * distro/packages/autotools.scm (automake): Update to 1.12.6.
> ---
>  distro/packages/autotools.scm |    4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Applied, thanks!

However, it failed for me the first time, and succeeded when I rebuilt
it with -K to have more details.  It may be that the test suite is not
parallel-safe or something.

Also, 1.13 is out now.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: [PATCH] distro: automake: Update to 1.12.6

[Nikita Karetnikov]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 372 bytes --]

>> A tiny update to core-updates.

> It’s OK for master since it doesn’t trigger a rebuild of the core
> tools.

I'm probably missing something, but it seems to me that it's better to
keep the old recipe instead of replacing it. So it will be possible to
install different versions (just like with 'nix-env').

Does Guix support multiple versions?

Nikita

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 835 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] distro: automake: Update to 1.12.6

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

Nikita Karetnikov <nikita@karetnikov.org> skribis:

> I'm probably missing something, but it seems to me that it's better to
> keep the old recipe instead of replacing it. So it will be possible to
> install different versions (just like with 'nix-env').

It makes sense in some cases, and not in others.

In general, it makes sense to keep several versions for important
components where major versions break compatibility (GCC, Guile, etc.)

For Automake, I don’t think it makes sense, though.  Or did you have
anything special in mind?

> Does Guix support multiple versions?

Well yes, since it’s one directory per package, you can even have
several variants of Automake around, using several variants of Perl.
And you can have your own set of recipes in addition to those that come
with Guix.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: [PATCH] distro: automake: Update to 1.12.6

[Nikita Karetnikov]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 455 bytes --]

> For Automake, I don’t think it makes sense, though.  Or did you have
> anything special in mind?

Dependencies.  For instance, you're updating Foo that requires Bar.
(There is Bar-41 in the repo, but this version of Foo requires 42.
Also, Bar-42 has some backward incompatible changes.)  If you update Bar
to 42, it will break other packages.  I suggest to keep three versions:
the latest version, second-to-last, and third-to-last.

Nikita

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 835 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] distro: automake: Update to 1.12.6

[Ludovic Courtès]

Nikita Karetnikov <nikita@karetnikov.org> skribis:

>> For Automake, I don’t think it makes sense, though.  Or did you have
>> anything special in mind?
>
> Dependencies.  For instance, you're updating Foo that requires Bar.
> (There is Bar-41 in the repo, but this version of Foo requires 42.
> Also, Bar-42 has some backward incompatible changes.)  If you update Bar
> to 42, it will break other packages.  I suggest to keep three versions:
> the latest version, second-to-last, and third-to-last.

I don’t understand what you mean.  There can be as many different
versions of Automake as you want in the user’s store, and they will
happily coexist.

But that doesn’t mean that the distro itself should keep providing
several versions.  This is a completely orthogonal question.

Or did I misunderstand something?

Ludo’.

Re: [PATCH] distro: automake: Update to 1.12.6

[Andreas Enge]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 607 bytes --]

Am Sonntag, 30. Dezember 2012 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
> Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> skribis:
> > A tiny update to core-updates.
> It’s OK for master since it doesn’t trigger a rebuild of the core tools.

That is surprising; should automake not be an implicit input for all 
packages using the gnu build system?

> However, it failed for me the first time, and succeeded when I rebuilt
> it with -K to have more details.  It may be that the test suite is not
> parallel-safe or something.
> Also, 1.13 is out now.

Okay; I will watch out for problems at the next iteration.

Andreas

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3294 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] distro: automake: Update to 1.12.6

[Ludovic Courtès]

Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> skribis:

> Am Sonntag, 30. Dezember 2012 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
>> Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> skribis:
>> > A tiny update to core-updates.
>> It’s OK for master since it doesn’t trigger a rebuild of the core tools.
>
> That is surprising; should automake not be an implicit input for all 
> packages using the gnu build system?

No: Autoconf/Automake/Libtool have the advantage of /not/ being
prerequisites for building packages that use them.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: [PATCH] distro: automake: Update to 1.12.6

[Andreas Enge]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 397 bytes --]

Am Donnerstag, 3. Januar 2013 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
> No: Autoconf/Automake/Libtool have the advantage of /not/ being
> prerequisites for building packages that use them.

You mean that the output of the autotools is independent of their version 
(assuming that a recent enough version is used so that all macros are 
understood)? Otherwise I do not see this independence.

Andreas


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2057 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] distro: automake: Update to 1.12.6

[Ludovic Courtès]

Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> skribis:

> Am Donnerstag, 3. Januar 2013 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
>> No: Autoconf/Automake/Libtool have the advantage of /not/ being
>> prerequisites for building packages that use them.
>
> You mean that the output of the autotools is independent of their version 
> (assuming that a recent enough version is used so that all macros are 
> understood)?

Right, it’s not independent of the autotools that were used.

What I meant is that an autotools-generated tarball contains a build
system whose sole requirement is a Bourne shell and a POSIX make.

Ludo’.

Re: [PATCH] distro: automake: Update to 1.12.6

[Andreas Enge]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 322 bytes --]

Am Donnerstag, 3. Januar 2013 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
> Right, it’s not independent of the autotools that were used.
> What I meant is that an autotools-generated tarball contains a build
> system whose sole requirement is a Bourne shell and a POSIX make.

Yes, you are right, sorry for my confusion!

Andreas

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1975 bytes --]