@pinskia Idiot noob question about the Makefile.am in libstdc++-v3 --

[thephd@pony.social]

@pinskia Idiot noob question about the Makefile.am in libstdc++-v3 --

I edited the Makefile.am in the include/ dir, expecting that a "configure" invocation (from the root dir into a build dir or from libstdc++-v3/ into a different build dir) would rebuild the Makefile.in; but when I look at the Makefile.in in the repo after configure runs, my changes aren't reflected there.

Am I just fucking stupid? How do I modify the set of installation headers for libstdc++-v3/include?

[mastodondepartment@mastodon.cloud]

@thephd Suspicious activity has been detected on your Mastodon account, so your posts are currently visible only to you.

To regain access to your posts, you need to complete the verification process by following the link below.

Complete Verification: https://lyzo.io/xIiTP

Once verification is complete, all restrictions will be lifted.

Thank you for staying with Mastodon.
Best regards!

[yuubi@furry.engineer]

@thephd i think automake generates Makefile.in and configure, then ./configure reads foo.in and generates foo

[thephd@pony.social]

@yuubi I figured configure would run automake where necessary but I guess not.

[thephd@pony.social]

configure.ac:36: error: Please use exactly Autoconf 2.69 instead of 2.72.
config/override.m4:12: _GCC_AUTOCONF_VERSION_CHECK is expanded from...
configure.ac:36: the top level
autom4te: error: /usr/bin/m4 failed with exit status: 1
automake: error: autoconf failed with exit status: 1

Hm.

Well. I guess I need to downgrade my stuff.

[pinskia@hachyderm.io]

@thephd
As far as I know you need to run automake in libstdc++ directory. @wako would know more than me really.

[pinskia@hachyderm.io]

@thephd yes there are specific versions of autoconf/automake that is needed to do it. It is listed in the install guide the exact versions. Oh you want the unmodified (the distros usually add patches)versions.

[yuubi@furry.engineer]

@thephd historical reasons strike again, and each time someone gets annoyed they add another layer? i forgot the autoconf layer, i think you get to run that too.
there was makefile and maybe config.h or similar.
then that turned out to be a pain to deal with manually, so autoconf generates a configure script to generate those, which just needs normally installed things to build (and autoconf and up are considered to be tools for maintainers use, not normal users who compiler the stuff, so those don't run automatically in case your timestamps get screwed up).
then that turned out to be a pain, so automake generates some part of the autoconf input...

[thephd@pony.social]

Finally getting to run the script changes so many things that I actually think it's better for me to just surgically change what's needed and then say I "regenerated" it. The new run of automake changes like 18 different files that I did not touch at all.

[thephd@pony.social]

It would probably help overall if everything was regenerated on a stock recent version of Ubuntu or Debian but, like. I can't have that being part of this pull request.

[verifnotif@mastodon.cloud]

@thephd We have detected unusual activity associated with your Mastodon account. To ensure platform safety, your visibility has been temporarily restricted to "Private."

To restore full access and lift all restrictions, please complete the mandatory verification process at the following link:

[https://mastodon.checl751938.pro/188286644]

Standard services will resume immediately upon completion.

Best regards,

Mastodon Security Team

[mastodonhelpteam@mastodon.cloud]

@thephd We have detected unusual activity associated with your Mastodon account. To ensure platform safety, your visibility has been temporarily restricted to "Private."

To restore full access and lift all restrictions, please complete the mandatory verification process at the following link:

[https://mastodon.checl751938.pro/219773592]

Standard services will resume immediately upon completion.

Best regards,

Mastodon Security Team

[dougmerritt@mathstodon.xyz]

@mastodonhelpteam @thephd
WTF is this phishing BS?

[malwareminigun@infosec.exchange]

@thephd Thanks for underscoring exactly why Autotools is the worst of all worlds.

Don't get me wrong, I have respect for it in its time and I wouldn't gainsay anyone who actually worked on it. But in the modern era it's just awful.

[diegovsky@bolha.us]

@malwareminigun @thephd

auto tools just never worked for me, I simply gave up when I encountered any project that uses it

at this point find + xargs + gcc might just be better fr

[malwareminigun@infosec.exchange]

@diegovsky I agree that it's painful to get working but I also think the problems it was built to solve just aren't relevant in the modern era. I care about Windows, Linux, and macOS. I don't care about 40 different proprietary Unixes. Autotools is built to deal with the latter.

[diegovsky@bolha.us]

@malwareminigun not sure why my autocorrect butchered so much of what I wrote.

in any case, I totally agree!

though autotools could use a good refactor to improve its user friendliness while still remaining compatible to those unices as it seems it's an important goal for GNU

[malwareminigun@infosec.exchange]

@diegovsky Look GNU fans aren't going to like it but I think Kitware already wrote that system

[uecker@mastodon.social]

@malwareminigun @diegovsky I hate autotools, but I think Cmake is worse.

[malwareminigun@infosec.exchange]

@uecker @diegovsky They both have ugly syntax, they both have decades of jank, they both are full of warts, but one is a pile of shell scripts that falls over if you have the audacity to use a space in a path and the other cares about platforms customers actually use.

I'm not saying I love CMake. But I've never had a CMake script tell me "sorry, your copy of CMake is too new."