GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 752009
Bootstrapping prerequisites for building on Linux
Last modified: 2021-05-17 16:02:40 UTC
A follow up to bug 751492. Since we strongly discourage jhbuild users running on a non-enterprise Linux distribution from using the `bootstrap` moduleset, we need to find a way for them to install global requirements needed to bootstrap the build environments. Usually, this would be the role for system dependencies, *but* some modules — like autoconf-archive/m4-common, and gnome-common before that — are not meant to be packaged. Maybe we should have a bootstrap-lite ("all the modules a bootstrap needs, without those pesky fats and sugars") moduleset, or maybe we should devise a way to specify that a module should still be built before everything else. Right now, gnome-common is needed by a bunch of modules, but specifying it by hand is tedious, and I'm pretty sure some module just rely on the graph solving the dependency.
(In reply to Emmanuele Bassi (:ebassi) from comment #0) > A follow up to bug 751492. > > Since we strongly discourage jhbuild users running on a non-enterprise Linux > distribution from using the `bootstrap` moduleset, we need to find a way for > them to install global requirements needed to bootstrap the build > environments. > > Usually, this would be the role for system dependencies, *but* some modules > — like autoconf-archive/m4-common, and gnome-common before that — are not > meant to be packaged. > > Maybe we should have a bootstrap-lite ("all the modules a bootstrap needs, > without those pesky fats and sugars") moduleset, or maybe we should devise a > way to specify that a module should still be built before everything else. > Right now, gnome-common is needed by a bunch of modules, but specifying it > by hand is tedious, and I'm pretty sure some module just rely on the graph > solving the dependency. If we added m4-common as a dependency of gnome-common, we would end up with the same implicit-dependency-graph problem as before, which would not be great. How about we explicitly add m4-common as a dependency of modules as they port to it (i.e. start using autoconf-archive macros as per https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/GnomeCommon/Migration)?
(In reply to Philip Withnall from comment #1) > If we added m4-common as a dependency of gnome-common, we would end up with > the same implicit-dependency-graph problem as before, which would not be > great. True. > How about we explicitly add m4-common as a dependency of modules as they > port to it (i.e. start using autoconf-archive macros as per > https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/GnomeCommon/Migration)? That would not solve the issue of new modules depending on m4-common/autoconf-archive that do not add it as a dependency, just like they do now for gnome-common.
(In reply to Emmanuele Bassi (:ebassi) from comment #2) > > How about we explicitly add m4-common as a dependency of modules as they > > port to it (i.e. start using autoconf-archive macros as per > > https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/GnomeCommon/Migration)? > > That would not solve the issue of new modules depending on > m4-common/autoconf-archive that do not add it as a dependency, just like > they do now for gnome-common. I would be fine with considering that a bug in the moduleset for any new module. It looks like moving towards a policy of making dependencies on m4-common explicit is a good plan.
I have modified the gnome-common migration page to mention this: https://wiki.gnome.org/action/info/Projects/GnomeCommon/Migration?action=diff&rev2=32&rev1=31
-- GitLab Migration Automatic Message -- This bug has been migrated to GNOME's GitLab instance and has been closed from further activity. You can subscribe and participate further through the new bug through this link to our GitLab instance: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/jhbuild/-/issues/224.