[Buildroot] [RFC PATCH 1/1] package/automake: include .m4 files of autoconf-archive

[Dario Binacchi]

Hi Yann and Thomas,

On Sun, Aug 13, 2023 at 10:41 PM Thomas Petazzoni
<thomas.petazzoni at bootlin.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Sun, 13 Aug 2023 14:40:37 +0200
> "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998 at free.fr> wrote:
>
> > After thinking a bit on this, here's what I think we should try;
> >
> > For packages that have _AUTORECONF = YES, we forcibly add
> > host-autoconf-archive to their _DEPENDENCIES, and always set the macros
> > search path as proposed here. Supposedly, having macros from
> > autoconf-archive available should not be a cause for failure to
> > successfully autorconf, otherwise that would not work on random systems
> > which have it installed for other reasons, like native builds on
> > standard distros; also, a missing directorry in the macro search list
> > should not be a cause for failure.
> >
> > Consequently, we can drop the ad-hoc dependencies in the individual
> > packages, and drop the ad-hoc include directove as well.
> >
> > host-autoconf-archive is a plain autocnf package, without dependencies
> > (save for the autoconf machinery), and it only ever installs a buncha
> > files, does not compile anything, so it is pretty fast. Adding it to all
> > autoreconfigured packages should have a minimal, barely noticeable
> > impact on the build time.
> >
> > If the above causes too much breakage, then even this patch was going to
> > be incorrect, as it would unconditionally add the autocon-archive path
> > to the search list for all packages that indirectly have
> > autoconf-archive in their dependencies.
>
> We have 336 packages that set AUTORECONF = YES. Out of these 336
> packages, only 8 need host-autoconf-archive.
>
> To me, it makes no sense to add host-autoconf-archive to those 336-8
> packages that need autoreconf, but do not use any of the macros
> provided by host-autoconf-archive. One of Buildroot's beauty is its
> minimalism: it builds only what's needed, and every time it builds
> something, there is a solid reason for it. I would really dislike if we
> were to start building useless dependencies, even if admittedly
> host-autoconf-archive is small and quick to build. But small and quick
> to build is not the only thing, it's also about whether it makes sense.
> I regularly stare at my build going on, and when something gets built
> that I don't understand why its gets pulled into the build, I check
> with "make graph-depends" why it is there, and sometimes investigate
> further to make sure there's a good justification. To me, this is an
> important property of Buildroot, and I would really like to keep this
> aspect of Buildroot.
>
> Especially, I don't see what problem we would solve by making
> host-autoconf-archive a dependency of all packages that do AUTORECONF =
> YES. What problem would this solve?
>

I am available to apply the changes suggested by Thomas in order to
submit version 2
of the patch. Alternatively, do you think it's better to stop here and
not proceed further?
As far as I'm concerned, this solution convinces me, but I also admit
that I don't have a
complete understanding of the topic and its implications.

Thanks and regards,

Dario

> Thomas
> --
> Thomas Petazzoni, co-owner and CEO, Bootlin
> Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering and training
> https://bootlin.com



-- 

Dario Binacchi

Senior Embedded Linux Developer

dario.binacchi at amarulasolutions.com

__________________________________


Amarula Solutions SRL

Via Le Canevare 30, 31100 Treviso, Veneto, IT

T. +39 042 243 5310
info at amarulasolutions.com

www.amarulasolutions.com