Missing dependency problem
Ralf Corsepius
rc040203 at freenet.de
Thu Apr 21 05:22:31 UTC 2005
On Thu, 2005-04-21 at 01:17 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Apr 12, 2005, Alexander Dalloz <ad+lists at uni-x.org> wrote:
>
> > Having gcc on your system you certainly want libtool too.
>
> Not really. libtool, as well as autoconf and automake, are designed
> to not be necessary for people who build packages, only for people who
> modify the package sources, using the tools to update the generated
> files that are to be shipped in the package buildable tarball.
>
> Therefore, removing libtool is perfectly reasonable, unless you happen
> to be developing a package whose source repository doesn't include
> generated files, for example, or that might need libtoolize run for
> whatever reason.
>
> I realize a number of spec files do run libtoolize, as well as
> aclocal, autoconf, automake, autoheader, autoreconf, etc. I've long
> considered this to be a bug, and recommend patching the sources to
> obtain the desired change. That's what patches are for. With the
> current approach, packages stop building at random because of updates
> of autotools, and then people blame autotools, instead of blaming the
> packager.
ACK.
> If people took the correct approach, we could even push autotools to
> Extras. I can't think of any legitimate reason to BuildRequiring
> them.
ACK, but there is one practical reason:
Vanilla libtool does not support RH's multiarch on ix86_64. To support
them.
RH has modified their libtool to accommodate RH's multiarch demands. All
in all, this renders all autotool-based configurations, having been
generated by non-RH-libtools to be non-applicable on Fedora-ix86_64
systems, and thus introduces a need to run libtoolize and friends (The
actual culprit is RH's changes to libtool.m4 - This requires to run
aclocal, and thereby triggers the "autoreconf" chain)
Ralf
More information about the users
mailing list