[llvm-dev] [RFC] Deprecating autoconf: Let's do it!

Tue Nov 10 07:11:32 PST 2015

On 11/9/15 5:49 PM, John Reagan wrote:
> That would be fine with me.  I just don't want some new visitor to
> come along and see "CMake only" and get discouraged and leave.

Well, it is going to be "CMake only". Anyone who depends on autotools is 
going to be stuck on whatever the last revision is that we shipped with 
it.  And I really don't see it being feasible for someone to port the 
end-of-life'd autotools build from 3.8 to 3.9 (for example), as we have 
a hard enough time keeping them in sync when both are in-tree.  Also, I 
sincerely doubt anyone would be motivated enough to pull that off: It's 
a big project, and I just don't see the ROI in it.

If there's some feature that this hypothetical user needs, which is 
solved by the autotools build, but isn't handled by CMake... we need to 
hear about that *now*.

Jon

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

-- 
Jon Roelofs
jonathan at codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery / Mentor Embedded