autogen is misconfigured

[test resend]

Quote one of my "clients":
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am running a software package that depends on
autogen.
> > This package has an #include <options.h>.
> > But compiling this package on fc6 failed, because
the
> > rpm on fc6-extras does not seem to include an
options.h
> >
> > Now I haven't used autogen for more than a year.
> > Is options.h obsolete, or superseded by something
else?
> > Or is the packager wrong? If so, I'll file a bug
report.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Ron

My reply was:

> > Hi Ron,
> >
> > You are correct.  There are _two_ files missing:
>> >> $ rpm -q -l autogen-5.8.7-6.1.fc5
>> >> /usr/bin/autogen
>> >> /usr/bin/columns.autogen
>> >> /usr/bin/getdefs.autogen
> > viz.,
> >
>> >> $ find /usr/local/include/autoopts -type
f
>> >> /usr/local/include/autoopts/options.h
>> >> /usr/local/include/autoopts/usage-txt.h

There are four problems:  The two missing headers
and the two misnamed executables.  The effect is to
render all the installed /usr/share/autogen data files
useless and the documentation useless to boot.  If your
goal is to strip it down  to the minimum necessary to be
able to rebuild the C compiler, then please do not call
your thing the "autogen" package, because it is
not.

Thank you - Bruce

-- 
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-listredhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-
list

On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 01:26:35PM -0800, Bruce Korb wrote:
> [test resend]
> 
> > >
> > > You are correct.  There are _two_ files
missing:
> >> >> $ rpm -q -l autogen-5.8.7-6.1.fc5
> >> >> /usr/bin/autogen
> >> >> /usr/bin/columns.autogen
> >> >> /usr/bin/getdefs.autogen
> > > viz.,
> > >
> >> >> $ find /usr/local/include/autoopts
-type f
> >> >>
/usr/local/include/autoopts/options.h
> >> >>
/usr/local/include/autoopts/usage-txt.h
> 
> There are four problems:  The two missing headers
> and the two misnamed executables.  The effect is to
> render all the installed /usr/share/autogen data files
> useless and the documentation useless to boot.  If
your
> goal is to strip it down  to the minimum necessary to
be
> able to rebuild the C compiler, then please do not
call
> your thing the "autogen" package, because it
is not.

Looking at the spec it seems that the alternative system is
used 
for columns and getdef so everything should be in order. 

For the missing header files, indeed it seems that
%/autoopts/ is excluded.

For this kind of bug repoort, bugzilla is the preferred
communication
channel.

--
Pat

-- 
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-listredhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-
list

On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 13:26:35 -0800, Bruce Korb wrote:

> My reply was:
> 
> > > Hi Ron,
> > >
> > > You are correct.  There are _two_ files
missing:
> >> >> $ rpm -q -l autogen-5.8.7-6.1.fc5
> >> >> /usr/bin/autogen
> >> >> /usr/bin/columns.autogen
> >> >> /usr/bin/getdefs.autogen
> > > viz.,
> > >
> >> >> $ find /usr/local/include/autoopts
-type f
> >> >>
/usr/local/include/autoopts/options.h
> >> >>
/usr/local/include/autoopts/usage-txt.h
> 
> There are four problems:  The two missing headers

There seems to be a separate "autogen-devel"
package, which contains
header files. Most likely options.h is included.

> and the two misnamed executables.

The package uses the "alternatives" system for
these two. Probably this is
not obvious. /usr/bin/columns and /usr/bin/getdefs are two
very generic
file names which pollute the /usr/bin namespace and bear the
risk of
causing a conflict with other software. It would be
beneficial if autogen
called the files differently and used an own namespace, e.g.
with a prefix
or postfix.

For any bug reports about the package: http://bugzilla.redhat.com


-- 
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-listredhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-
list

On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 23:18:53 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:

> For the missing header files, indeed it seems that
> %/autoopts/ is excluded.

%files devel
%defattr(-,root,root)
%/aclocal/autoopts.m4
%/aclocal/liboptschk.m4
%/pkgconfig/autoopts.pc
%exclude %/man3/*
%/man1/autoopts-config*
%exclude %/autoopts/     <-- (!)
%/autoopts-config
%/libguileopts.so
%/libopts.so
%/autoopts               <-- (!)

Hmmm?

Anyway, that's a post-review change and bug.

Review was this: https://bugzilla.r
edhat.com/197814
(autogen-5_8_5-6)

-- 
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-listredhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-
list

Michael Schwendt wrote:
> There seems to be a separate "autogen-devel"
package, which contains
> header files. Most likely options.h is included.

Given that autogen is a development package anyway. 
GCC-from-source
builders aside, essentially anyone wanting autogen is going
to want
the two files in autogen-devel.  Given that and the
sub-marginal
amount of space taken by the two files, I fail to understand
why
it is worth the bother to separate.

>> and the two misnamed executables.
> 
> The package uses the "alternatives" system
for these two. Probably this is
> not obvious. /usr/bin/columns and /usr/bin/getdefs are
two very generic
> file names which pollute the /usr/bin namespace and
bear the risk of
> causing a conflict with other software. It would be
beneficial if autogen
> called the files differently and used an own namespace,
e.g. with a prefix
> or postfix.

"getdefs" can be so treated.  Go ahead and add an
"ag-" prefix or something.
I don't particularly see it as a very generic name, but
renaming it is
not crucial.  Renaming "columns" _is_ a problem. 
"autogen" under various
incarnations is about a decade old with widely available
public releases
available for over 6 years and it has been officially
"GNU" for several
years now.  "columns" is a program incorporated
into many templates.
It cannot be renamed without invalidating the templates in
use by at least
a few hundred people.  That is not a good idea. 
"columns" can certainly
be treated as a "generic" program anyway.  It does
what its name suggests
fairly well.  Nearly as well as ``ls -C'' or ``ls -x'' (does
not support
different widths for different columns).  By making
"columns" have a
separate name, you are invalidating these templates.

Regards, Bruce

-- 
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-listredhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-
list

On Sun, 2007-03-04 at 12:08 -0800, Bruce Korb wrote:
> Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > There seems to be a separate
"autogen-devel" package, which contains
> > header files. Most likely options.h is included.
> 
> Given that autogen is a development package anyway. 
GCC-from-source
> builders aside, essentially anyone wanting autogen is
going to want
> the two files in autogen-devel.  Given that and the
sub-marginal
> amount of space taken by the two files, I fail to
understand why
> it is worth the bother to separate.
> 
Please open a bug in bugzilla.  The packager of autogen
needs to respond
to your comments and that's the only way to be sure to get a
hold of
them.  If you find the packager to be unreasonable other
packagers can
then get involved if there's a clear path forward.

> >> and the two misnamed executables.
> > 
> > The package uses the "alternatives"
system for these two. Probably this is
> > not obvious. /usr/bin/columns and /usr/bin/getdefs
are two very generic
> > file names which pollute the /usr/bin namespace
and bear the risk of
> > causing a conflict with other software. It would
be beneficial if autogen
> > called the files differently and used an own
namespace, e.g. with a prefix
> > or postfix.
> 
> "getdefs" can be so treated.  Go ahead and
add an "ag-" prefix or something.
> I don't particularly see it as a very generic name, but
renaming it is
> not crucial.  Renaming "columns" _is_ a
problem.  "autogen" under various
> incarnations is about a decade old with widely
available public releases
> available for over 6 years and it has been officially
"GNU" for several
> years now.  "columns" is a program
incorporated into many templates.
> It cannot be renamed without invalidating the templates
in use by at least
> a few hundred people.  That is not a good idea. 
"columns" can certainly
> be treated as a "generic" program anyway.  It
does what its name suggests
> fairly well.  Nearly as well as ``ls -C'' or ``ls -x''
(does not support
> different widths for different columns).  By making
"columns" have a
> separate name, you are invalidating these templates.

As stated, these programs are packaged using the
alternatives system.
So the end user is able to have /usr/bin/columns and
/usr/bin/getdefs
point at the autogen implementation or at a different
implementation.
So this isn't as far wrong as you make it out to be.  Take a
look at my
system, for instance:

$ rpm -ql autogen|grep bin
/usr/bin/autogen
/usr/bin/columns.autogen
/usr/bin/getdefs.autogen
/usr/bin/xml2ag
$ ls -al /usr/bin/columns /usr/bin/getdefs
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 25 Feb 25 15:39 /usr/bin/columns
-> /etc/alternatives/columns
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 25 Feb 25 15:39 /usr/bin/getdefs
-> /etc/alternatives/getdefs
$ ls -al /etc/alternatives/columns
/etc/alternatives/getdefs
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 24 Feb 25 15:39
/etc/alternatives/columns
-> /usr/bin/columns.autogen
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 24 Feb 25 15:39
/etc/alternatives/getdefs
-> /usr/bin/getdefs.autogen

Running rpm -q --scripts autogen will show you the
scriptlets that are
registering columns and getdefs with the alternatives system
to
automatically create /usr/bin/columns and /usr/bin/getdefs
on
installation of the package.

Is alternatives the right solution to this problem? 
Probably not.
Alternaties was invented to address things like sendmail's
sendmail
program vs postfix's sendmail program.  Both those programs
take the
same options on the commandline and yield similar results
through
different backends.  Is autogen's version of
/usr/bin/columns part of
POSIX, the Single Unix Specification, or LSB?  If so, we
have a solid
foundation and alternatives (or removing alternatives as
there is no
alternative implementation in the system currently) makes
sense.  If
not, then we can only hope that no other open source
software chooses
the generic /usr/bin/columns name for their program
otherwise we all
lose.

-Toshio

-- 
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-listredhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-
list

Hi,

> > Given that autogen is a development package
anyway.  GCC-from-source
> > builders aside, essentially anyone wanting autogen
is going to want
> > the two files in autogen-devel.  Given that and
the sub-marginal
> > amount of space taken by the two files, I fail to
understand why
> > it is worth the bother to separate.
> > 
> Please open a bug in bugzilla.  The packager of autogen
needs to respond
> to your comments and that's the only way to be sure to
get a hold of
> them.  If you find the packager to be unreasonable
other packagers can
> then get involved if there's a clear path forward.

As the packager...

I have followed the rules regarding the headers being in
their own
-devel file. The problem (as I see it) is that without the
devel
package, the main package is pretty useless. However,
adding
R:autogen-devel causes problems (circular deps)

> Is alternatives the right solution to this problem? 
Probably not.
> Alternaties was invented to address things like
sendmail's sendmail
> program vs postfix's sendmail program.  Both those
programs take the
> same options on the commandline and yield similar
results through
> different backends.  Is autogen's version of
/usr/bin/columns part of
> POSIX, the Single Unix Specification, or LSB?  If so,
we have a solid
> foundation and alternatives (or removing alternatives
as there is no
> alternative implementation in the system currently)
makes sense.  If
> not, then we can only hope that no other open source
software chooses
> the generic /usr/bin/columns name for their program
otherwise we all
> lose.

It is certainly a pain and would appreciate some guidance on
either
repackaging this or the next step forward.

TTFN

Paul
-- 
Sie können mich aufreizen und wirklich heiß machen!

-- 
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-listredhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-
list

On Monday 05 March 2007 18:04:45 Paul wrote:
> As the packager...
>
> I have followed the rules regarding the headers being
in their own
> -devel file. The problem (as I see it) is that without
the devel
> package, the main package is pretty useless. However,
adding
> R:autogen-devel causes problems (circular deps)

isn't this one of the exceptions where the package itself is
a development 
package, like gcc ?

-- 
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora

-- 
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-listredhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-
list

Hi,

> > I have followed the rules regarding the headers
being in their own
> > -devel file. The problem (as I see it) is that
without the devel
> > package, the main package is pretty useless.
However, adding
> > R:autogen-devel causes problems (circular deps)
> 
> isn't this one of the exceptions where the package
itself is a development 
> package, like gcc ?

Probably. However, the headers only solve one half of the
problem. The
other half is the columns program.

TTFN

Paul

-- 
Sie können mich aufreizen und wirklich heiß machen!

-- 
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-listredhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-
list