#36 provide bootstrap.sh or autogen.sh

open
nobody
None
5
2007-03-09
2007-03-09
No

Hello,

currently your source package demands the user to

$ make -f Makefile.dist

while the common way of handling configure script
generation is an ./autogen.sh or (better) ./bootstrap.sh script.

Basically, you could keep everything in place as it is,
and add a ./bootstrap.sh script to the distributed tarball with the contents:

#! /bin/sh

make -f Makefile.dist

I am suggesting this because by using conventional methods, your source package is automatically installable using existing OS-independent tools like the gnu source installer I am maintaining.

Thanks for considering this feature enhancement,

Claudio

Discussion

  • kiriuja

    kiriuja - 2007-03-11

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=137121
    Originator: NO

    Hi, to tell you the truth I've never seen a KDE program ship with a bootstrap.sh or autogen.sh. My suggestion would be to enhance you source installer to run "make -f Makefile.dist" or "make -f Makefile.cvs" whenever a source package doesn't have a configure or bootstrap.sh or autogen.sh but comes with a Makefile.dist or Makefile.cvs. This way you'll save *lots* of duplicate effort. Just imagine hundreds of KDE programs each including exactly the same bootstrap.sh, what a waste! Just my opinion.

     
  • Anonymous - 2007-03-11

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=790036
    Originator: YES

    > Hi, to tell you the truth I've never seen a KDE program ship with a
    > bootstrap.sh or autogen.sh.

    And even bootstrap/autogen are a minority, as most source packages are distributed
    with a configure script already in place.
    However, bootstrap behaviour is at least mostly well defined.

    > My suggestion would be to enhance you source installer to run
    > "make -f Makefile.dist" or "make -f Makefile.cvs" whenever
    > a source package doesn't have a configure or bootstrap.sh or autogen.sh but
    > comes with a Makefile.dist or Makefile.cvs.

    Unfortunately the behaviour of Makefile.dist and Makefile.cvs are not well defined.
    I have seen packages actually building the distribution
    package in Makefile.dist, or committing changes to cvs using Makefile.cvs.

    > This way you'll save *lots* of
    > duplicate effort. Just imagine hundreds of KDE programs each including
    > exactly the same bootstrap.sh, what a waste! Just my opinion.

    I do not see a big waste anywhere, a ~32 bytes file in each source package for the sake
    of compatibility would be acceptable in my view.

     

Log in to post a comment.

Get latest updates about Open Source Projects, Conferences and News.

Sign up for the SourceForge newsletter:





No, thanks