[arch-dev-public] pacman-4.1
Hi, Pacman-4.1.0 is released and in the [testing] repos. See my blog [1] for details of what is new in this release. Cheers, Allan [1] http://allanmcrae.com/2013/04/pacman-4-1-released/
2013/4/1 Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org>:
Hi,
Pacman-4.1.0 is released and in the [testing] repos. See my blog [1] for details of what is new in this release.
Cheers, Allan
I have updated pyalpm accordingly. Thanks for the release blog post! It's been a while since I haven't followed pacman development and I am thrilled to see such transformations happening. Rémy.
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
Hi,
Pacman-4.1.0 is released and in the [testing] repos. See my blog [1] for details of what is new in this release.
With this commit[1], can we assume that install script should now be written in bash? [1] https://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/commit/trunk?h=packages/pacman&id=b41b136a374fc85c559e06120b5dc82cd4d5aa28 -- Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer https://www.seblu.net GPG: 0x2072D77A
On 05/04/13 07:42, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
Hi,
Pacman-4.1.0 is released and in the [testing] repos. See my blog [1] for details of what is new in this release.
With this commit[1], can we assume that install script should now be written in bash?
What did you think it was written in previously? We have always used bashisms. Allan
On 05/04/13 07:42, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
Hi,
Pacman-4.1.0 is released and in the [testing] repos. See my blog [1] for details of what is new in this release.
With this commit[1], can we assume that install script should now be written in bash?
[1]
What did you think it was written in previously? We have always used bashisms.
Posix shell. Pacman starts /bin/sh, a symlink to bash, which switch it in
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 12:25 AM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote: posix mode. Actually, this mode doesn't disallow bashism, it modify some minor behaviour of bash. I also remember when I was a TU padawan, a jedi master, ask me to avoid bashism in install scripts because /bin/sh can be modified by user to something else and we should be posix as possible. I never checked that before but we have currently at minimum 50 install scripts with bashism. I will be more relax writing my install scripts :) Thanks for clarification. -- Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer https://www.seblu.net GPG: 0x2072D77A
On 05/04/13 19:36, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
I never checked that before but we have currently at minimum 50 install scripts with bashism.
Every single install script for info files is non "sh" compatible, as users of dash as /bin/sh will testify to...
Am 01.04.2013 08:39, schrieb Allan McRae:
Hi,
Pacman-4.1.0 is released and in the [testing] repos. See my blog [1] for details of what is new in this release.
Cheers, Allan
The new default CPPFLAGS seem to break configure. cpp complains that -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 cannot be used without -O.
On 05/04/13 18:34, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Am 01.04.2013 08:39, schrieb Allan McRae:
Hi,
Pacman-4.1.0 is released and in the [testing] repos. See my blog [1] for details of what is new in this release.
Cheers, Allan
The new default CPPFLAGS seem to break configure. cpp complains that -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 cannot be used without -O.
I thought it fixed issues (e.g. curl). Or are we both just taking one package and wildly generalising...?
Am 05.04.2013 10:57, schrieb Allan McRae:
On 05/04/13 18:34, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Am 01.04.2013 08:39, schrieb Allan McRae:
Hi,
Pacman-4.1.0 is released and in the [testing] repos. See my blog [1] for details of what is new in this release.
Cheers, Allan
The new default CPPFLAGS seem to break configure. cpp complains that -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 cannot be used without -O.
I thought it fixed issues (e.g. curl).
Or are we both just taking one package and wildly generalising...?
We are. This is what I got: configure:6470: checking how to run the C preprocessor configure:6501: gcc -E -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 conftest.c In file included from /usr/include/limits.h:26:0, from /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.8.0/include-fixed/limits.h:168, from /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.8.0/include-fixed/syslimits.h:7, from /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.8.0/include-fixed/limits.h:34, from conftest.c:13: /usr/include/features.h:330:4: warning: #warning _FORTIFY_SOURCE requires compiling with optimization (-O) [-Wcpp] # warning _FORTIFY_SOURCE requires compiling with optimization (-O) ^ configure:6501: $? = 0 configure: failed program was: | /* confdefs.h */ | #define PACKAGE_NAME "shellinabox" | #define PACKAGE_TARNAME "shellinabox" | #define PACKAGE_VERSION "2.10" | #define PACKAGE_STRING "shellinabox 2.10" | #define PACKAGE_BUGREPORT "markus@shellinabox.com" | #define PACKAGE_URL "" | #define VCS_REVISION "239" | #define PACKAGE "shellinabox" | #define VERSION "2.10" | /* end confdefs.h. */ | #ifdef __STDC__ | # include <limits.h> | #else | # include <assert.h> | #endif | Syntax error Confusing here is that there is no error, just a warning, but it still starts retrying different preprocessor command and eventually fails. Appending -O2 to the CPPFLAGS fixed the build.
On 05/04/13 19:09, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Am 05.04.2013 10:57, schrieb Allan McRae:
On 05/04/13 18:34, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Am 01.04.2013 08:39, schrieb Allan McRae:
Hi,
Pacman-4.1.0 is released and in the [testing] repos. See my blog [1] for details of what is new in this release.
Cheers, Allan
The new default CPPFLAGS seem to break configure. cpp complains that -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 cannot be used without -O.
I thought it fixed issues (e.g. curl).
Or are we both just taking one package and wildly generalising...?
We are. This is what I got:
configure:6470: checking how to run the C preprocessor configure:6501: gcc -E -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 conftest.c In file included from /usr/include/limits.h:26:0, from /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.8.0/include-fixed/limits.h:168, from /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.8.0/include-fixed/syslimits.h:7, from /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.8.0/include-fixed/limits.h:34, from conftest.c:13: /usr/include/features.h:330:4: warning: #warning _FORTIFY_SOURCE requires compiling with optimization (-O) [-Wcpp] # warning _FORTIFY_SOURCE requires compiling with optimization (-O) ^ configure:6501: $? = 0 configure: failed program was: | /* confdefs.h */ | #define PACKAGE_NAME "shellinabox" | #define PACKAGE_TARNAME "shellinabox" | #define PACKAGE_VERSION "2.10" | #define PACKAGE_STRING "shellinabox 2.10" | #define PACKAGE_BUGREPORT "markus@shellinabox.com" | #define PACKAGE_URL "" | #define VCS_REVISION "239" | #define PACKAGE "shellinabox" | #define VERSION "2.10" | /* end confdefs.h. */ | #ifdef __STDC__ | # include <limits.h> | #else | # include <assert.h> | #endif | Syntax error
Confusing here is that there is no error, just a warning, but it still starts retrying different preprocessor command and eventually fails. Appending -O2 to the CPPFLAGS fixed the build.
Yes... this is my pet hate - people who use -Werror and expect their code to be magically immune to any future warnings. And this is even more annoying because it is quite hidden... Fix: sed "s#AC_LANG_WERROR##" configure.ac autoreconf -i Allan
participants (4)
-
Allan McRae
-
Rémy Oudompheng
-
Sébastien Luttringer
-
Thomas Bächler