Debian Bug report logs - #372241
Diff for 1.2.7-1.1 NMU

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: James Vega <jamessan@debian.org>

To: submit@bugs.debian.org

Cc: James Vega <jamessan@debian.org>

Subject: Diff for 1.2.7-1.1 NMU

Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 21:34:06 -0400

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Package: apr-util
Version: 1.2.7-1
Severity: normal
Tags: patch

Attached is the diff for my apr-util 1.2.7-1.1 NMU.
-- 
GPG Key: 1024D/61326D40 2003-09-02 James Vega <jamessan@debian.org>

[apr-util_1.2.7-1.1.diff (text/plain, attachment)]

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #10 received at 372241@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: James Vega <jamessan@debian.org>

To: 372241@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Diff for 1.2.7-1.1 NMU

Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 22:02:34 -0400

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 09:34:06PM -0400, James Vega wrote:
> Attached is the diff for my apr-util 1.2.7-1.1 NMU.

I noticed after I opened this NMU bug that the original bug had just
been opened the same day.  Therefore I uploaded a 7 day delayed NMU.
Sorry for jumping the gun. :)

/me adjusts his settings on bts.turmzimmer.net

James
-- 
GPG Key: 1024D/61326D40 2003-09-02 James Vega <jamessan@debian.org>

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #21 received at 372241-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no>

To: James Vega <jamessan@debian.org>

Cc: 372241-done@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#372241: Diff for 1.2.7-1.1 NMU

Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 15:30:08 +0200

* James Vega 

| Attached is the diff for my apr-util 1.2.7-1.1 NMU.

Removed with your consent, since this is a bug in autoconf and the NMU
is wrong. :-)

: tfheen@gluck ~/DELAYED/2-day $ rm -f  libaprutil1* apr-util_1.2.7-1.1*
: tfheen@gluck ~/DELAYED/2-day $

-- 
Tollef Fog Heen                                                        ,''`.
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are      : :' :
                                                                      `. `' 
                                                                        `-  

Message #31 received at 372241@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf.Wildenhues@gmx.de>

To: Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no>, James Vega <jamessan@debian.org>, 372241@bugs.debian.org

Cc: bug-autoconf@gnu.org, Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu>

Subject: Re: Bug#372179: marked as done (autoconf: AC_CANONICAL_SYSTEM overwrites $@)

Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 16:41:56 +0200

Getting bug-autoconf into play:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=372241
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=372179

> Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 20:09:30 +0200
> From: Julien Danjou <acid@debian.org>
> To: submit@bugs.debian.org
> Subject: apr-util: FTBFS: cannot stat `./debian/tmp/usr/include/apr-1.0': No such file or directory

> Package: apr-util
> Version: 1.2.7-1
> Severity: serious

> There was a problem while autobuilding your package:

> > dh_install -a
> > cp: cannot stat `./debian/tmp/usr/include/apr-1.0': No such file or directory
> > dh_install: command returned error code 256
> > make: *** [binary-arch] Error 1

This is because the APR_PARSE_ARGUMENTS macro of apr-util parses the
configure arguments, very similar to what _AC_INIT_PARSE_ARGS does;
and AC_CANONICAL_SYSTEM now overwrites the positional parameters by
using
  set x ...


I could find an online copy of APR_PARSE_ARGUMENTS here:
http://apache.hpi.uni-potsdam.de/document/sources/httpd-2.0.45-html/source/build/apr_common.m4

A note to the apr people: several macros in Autoconf overwrite the
positional parameters, not just AC_CANONICAL_SYSTEM.  For example,
AC_CHECK_PROG does, so do some others.  There is really no guarantee
that $@ is conserved throughout the configure script.

IMHO the best would be to just document this limitation in the Autoconf
manual.  This would mean, however, that apr needs to rewrite its macros.
It may be possible to reorder macro invocations so the expansion of
APR_PARSE_ARGUMENTS comes before any AC_CANONICAL_*?

Thoughts?

Cheers,
Ralf

Message #46 received at 372241@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Stepan Kasal <kasal@ucw.cz>

To: bug-autoconf@gnu.org

Cc: Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no>, James Vega <jamessan@debian.org>, 372241@bugs.debian.org, Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu>

Subject: Re: Bug#372179: marked as done (autoconf: AC_CANONICAL_SYSTEM overwrites $@)

Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 18:12:51 +0200

Hello,

On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 04:41:56PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> It may be possible to reorder macro invocations so the expansion of
> APR_PARSE_ARGUMENTS comes before any AC_CANONICAL_*?

... but this is only a temporary workaround, of course, because:

> [...] several macros in Autoconf overwrite the positional
> parameters, not just AC_CANONICAL_SYSTEM.  For example,
> AC_CHECK_PROG does, so do some others.  [...]

I agree that we should document this limitation.  I would document
that any Autoconf macro can change the positional parameters.

There is only one question: should we make the commitment that
AC_INIT leaves the parameters untached or not?
(I don't know the answer.)

Have a nice day,
	Stepan Kasal

Message #51 received at 372241@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Paul Eggert <eggert@CS.UCLA.EDU>

To: bug-autoconf@gnu.org

Cc: Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no>, James Vega <jamessan@debian.org>, 372241@bugs.debian.org, Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu>

Subject: Re: Bug#372179: marked as done (autoconf: AC_CANONICAL_SYSTEM overwrites $@)

Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 09:33:08 -0700

Stepan Kasal <kasal@ucw.cz> writes:

> I agree that we should document this limitation.  I would document
> that any Autoconf macro can change the positional parameters.

That's what I did in the patch I installed yesterday
<http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf-patches/2006-06/msg00065.html>.

> There is only one question: should we make the commitment that
> AC_INIT leaves the parameters untached or not?

Yes (the patch yesterday says that).

Message #56 received at 372241@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf.Wildenhues@gmx.de>

To: bug-autoconf@gnu.org, Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no>, James Vega <jamessan@debian.org>, 372241@bugs.debian.org, Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu>

Subject: Re: Bug#372179: marked as done (autoconf: AC_CANONICAL_SYSTEM overwrites $@)

Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 18:34:04 +0200

Hi Stepan,

* Stepan Kasal wrote on Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 06:12:51PM CEST:
> > [...] several macros in Autoconf overwrite the positional
> > parameters, not just AC_CANONICAL_SYSTEM.  For example,
> > AC_CHECK_PROG does, so do some others.  [...]
> 
> I agree that we should document this limitation.  I would document
> that any Autoconf macro can change the positional parameters.

See here:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf-patches/2006-06/msg00065.html

> There is only one question: should we make the commitment that
> AC_INIT leaves the parameters untached or not?
> (I don't know the answer.)

Above change has implicitly made this assumption.  I think it is ok;
we should allow ourselves to change this only when we give the user a
better, documented method to access them (remember that we agreed a
couple of weeks ago not to do this documenting now?).

Cheers,
Ralf

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.