<p dir="ltr">I think Debian/Ubuntu package builder still uses autoconf. How will the change influence it?</p>
<p dir="ltr">Pawel</p>
<br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Tue, Nov 10, 2015, 15:11 Jonathan Roelofs via llvm-dev <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
<br>
On 11/9/15 5:49 PM, John Reagan wrote:<br>
> That would be fine with me. I just don't want some new visitor to<br>
> come along and see "CMake only" and get discouraged and leave.<br>
<br>
Well, it is going to be "CMake only". Anyone who depends on autotools is<br>
going to be stuck on whatever the last revision is that we shipped with<br>
it. And I really don't see it being feasible for someone to port the<br>
end-of-life'd autotools build from 3.8 to 3.9 (for example), as we have<br>
a hard enough time keeping them in sync when both are in-tree. Also, I<br>
sincerely doubt anyone would be motivated enough to pull that off: It's<br>
a big project, and I just don't see the ROI in it.<br>
<br>
If there's some feature that this hypothetical user needs, which is<br>
solved by the autotools build, but isn't handled by CMake... we need to<br>
hear about that *now*.<br>
<br>
<br>
Jon<br>
<br>
><br>
> -----Original Message----- From: <a href="mailto:mehdi.amini@apple.com" target="_blank">mehdi.amini@apple.com</a><br>
> [mailto:<a href="mailto:mehdi.amini@apple.com" target="_blank">mehdi.amini@apple.com</a>] Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 6:30<br>
> PM To: Jonathan Roelofs Cc: John Reagan; Chris Bieneman; llvm-dev;<br>
> <a href="mailto:llvm-dev-request@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev-request@lists.llvm.org</a> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC]<br>
> Deprecating autoconf: Let's do it!<br>
><br>
><br>
>> On Nov 9, 2015, at 3:21 PM, Jonathan Roelofs via llvm-dev<br>
>> <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On 11/9/15 4:02 PM, John Reagan via llvm-dev wrote:<br>
>>> Keeping the documentation with large warnings is sufficient. It<br>
>>> would at least let somebody then grab an older version's<br>
>>> makefiles if they are so inclined/interested. I have no problem<br>
>>> with you yanking the files, just the fact that older versions did<br>
>>> have configure/makefiles. I only spoke up when I saw the<br>
>>> suggestion for removing the online documentation.<br>
>><br>
>> ISTM that this would be "solved" by making old versions of the docs<br>
>> available on the website. I'd rather we avoid documenting features<br>
>> we don't have (even given such a large warning at the top).<br>
><br>
><br>
> +1.<br>
><br>
> We already keep the old versions on the website AFAIK, for example:<br>
> <a href="http://llvm.org/releases/3.6.0/docs/index.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://llvm.org/releases/3.6.0/docs/index.html</a><br>
><br>
> What we may do is changing the sentence in the “Getting Started” page<br>
> ( <a href="http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html</a> ) from:<br>
><br>
> "The usual build uses CMake. If you would rather use autotools, see<br>
> Building LLVM with auto tools.”<br>
><br>
> to<br>
><br>
> "The only supported way to build LLVM is using CMake. Releases up to<br>
> 3.8 were also providing an alternative with the autotools.”<br>
><br>
> Best,<br>
><br>
> — Mehdi<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Jon<br>
>><br>
>>><br>
>>> John<br>
>>><br>
>>> -----Original Message----- From: <a href="mailto:cbieneman@apple.com" target="_blank">cbieneman@apple.com</a><br>
>>> [mailto:<a href="mailto:cbieneman@apple.com" target="_blank">cbieneman@apple.com</a>] On Behalf Of Chris Bieneman Sent:<br>
>>> Monday, November 09, 2015 5:43 PM To: John Reagan Cc: llvm-dev;<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:llvm-dev-request@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev-request@lists.llvm.org</a> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC]<br>
>>> Deprecating autoconf: Let's do it!<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>>> On Nov 9, 2015, at 8:49 AM, John Reagan via llvm-dev<br>
>>>> <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> As somebody who's currently hosting LLVM on a platform<br>
>>>> (OpenVMS Itanium) that has configure but not a working CMake<br>
>>>> (we're working to fix that but there are some tricky issues), I<br>
>>>> would appreciate if you didn't scrub the existence of configure<br>
>>>> from the source or the documentation.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Are you proposing that we keep the makefiles? I think we<br>
>>> specifically want to get rid of those because it doesn’t make<br>
>>> sense to have them around if they aren’t expected to work. I<br>
>>> don’t think we will do a concerted scrub of all makefile-related<br>
>>> code, but I do expect we’ll remove the configure script and all<br>
>>> the makefiles themselves.<br>
>>><br>
>>> We could keep the autoconf documentation around for a release or<br>
>>> two with a big “warning” at the top saying the autoconf system is<br>
>>> removed in 3.9 and later.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Do you think that is sufficient?<br>
>>><br>
>>> -Chris<br>
>>><br>
>>>> Perhaps keep pointers to the older pages and link to them from<br>
>>>> the downloads pages or something with an "as-is" message? It<br>
>>>> would at least give somebody a head start if they didn't have<br>
>>>> CMake. Even telling me to yank the script from an older<br>
>>>> version would be sufficient.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> John<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> ------------------------------<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Message: 8 Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2015 09:56:42 -0800 From: Chris<br>
>>>> Bieneman via llvm-dev <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>> To: llvm-dev<br>
>>>> <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>> Subject: [llvm-dev] [RFC]<br>
>>>> Deprecating autoconf: Let's do it! Message-ID:<br>
>>>> <<a href="mailto:4D17078D-A8AA-446F-8FFB-5988583628CB@apple.com" target="_blank">4D17078D-A8AA-446F-8FFB-5988583628CB@apple.com</a>> Content-Type:<br>
>>>> text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Hi LLVMDev,<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Since my last update we’ve landed patches for these issues: *<br>
>>>> Bug 14200 - -fno-rtti not in cxxflags given by llvm-config *<br>
>>>> Bug 23746 - test-suite lacks CMake support * Bug 25059 - CMake<br>
>>>> libllvm.so.$MAJOR.$MINOR shared object name not compatible<br>
>>>> with ldconfig<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> On my last thread Jonathan Roelofs pointed out that there is a<br>
>>>> workaround for Bug 21568 (Cannot add rpath), so I’m making it<br>
>>>> non-blocking. Which leaves only Bug 23947, which I’m also going<br>
>>>> to move that to non-blocking because it only applies to<br>
>>>> building LLVM on MIPS64 hardware.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> With those changes we have no issues left blocking deprecating<br>
>>>> autoconf. There are still some issues we should track and<br>
>>>> follow through on, but I think all major uses are covered and<br>
>>>> we can make CMake the only officially supported way to build<br>
>>>> LLVM.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> My proposal at this point is that we should officially<br>
>>>> deprecate autoconf, and I would like to follow this process for<br>
>>>> removing it:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> (1) Add a note to the release notes for 3.8, and a big warning<br>
>>>> at the end of the configure script telling people to use CMake<br>
>>>> (2) Support autoconf with bug fixes only, no new features for<br>
>>>> 3.8 (3) After the 3.8 branch remove all the makefiles and have<br>
>>>> the configure script log a message to use CMake (4) After the<br>
>>>> 3.9 branch remove the configure script completely<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> I’ve attached a patch that handles the first step. Please let<br>
>>>> me know if this sounds like a reasonable path for the<br>
>>>> community.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Also, a big “Thank You” to everyone who has contributed<br>
>>>> patches, reviewed patches, and helped out with this work over<br>
>>>> the last year. It has been a long road, but the end is in<br>
>>>> sight!<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Thanks, -Chris<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> _______________________________________________ LLVM<br>
>>>> Developers mailing list <a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br>
>>>> <a href="http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev</a><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> _______________________________________________ LLVM Developers<br>
>>> mailing list <a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br>
>>> <a href="http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev</a><br>
>>><br>
>><br>
>> -- Jon Roelofs <a href="mailto:jonathan@codesourcery.com" target="_blank">jonathan@codesourcery.com</a> CodeSourcery / Mentor<br>
>> Embedded<br>
>><br>
>> -- Jon Roelofs <a href="mailto:jonathan@codesourcery.com" target="_blank">jonathan@codesourcery.com</a> CodeSourcery / Mentor<br>
>> Embedded _______________________________________________ LLVM<br>
>> Developers mailing list <a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br>
>> <a href="http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
--<br>
Jon Roelofs<br>
<a href="mailto:jonathan@codesourcery.com" target="_blank">jonathan@codesourcery.com</a><br>
CodeSourcery / Mentor Embedded<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
LLVM Developers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>