I'm currently learning how to use the autoconf/automake toolchain. I seem to have a general understanding of the workflow here - basically you have a configure.ac script which generates an executable configure file. The generated configure script is then executed by the end user to generate Makefiles, so the program can be built/installed.
So the installation for a typical end-user is basically:
./configure
make
make install
make clean
Okay, now here's where I'm confused:
As a developer, I've noticed that the auto-generated configure script sometimes won't run, and will error with:
config.status: error: cannot find input file: `somedir/Makefile.in'
This confuses me, because I thought the configure script is supposed to generate the Makefile.in. So Googling around for some answers, I've discovered that this can be fixed with an autogen.sh script, which basically "resets" the state of the autoconf environment. A typical autogen.sh script would be something like:
aclocal \
&& automake --add-missing \
&& autoconf
Okay fine. But as an end-user who's downloaded countless tarballs throughout my life, I've never had to use an autogen.sh script. All I did was uncompress the tarball, and do the usual configure/make/make install/make clean routine.
But as a developer who's now using autoconf, it seems that configure doesn't actually run unless you run autogen.sh first. So I find this very confusing, because I thought the end-user shouldn't have to run autogen.sh.
So why do I have to run autogen.sh first - in order for the configure script to find Makefile.in? Why doesn't the configure script simply generate it?
In order to really understand the autotools utilities you have to remember where they come from: they come from an open source world where there are (a) developers who are working from a source code repository (CVS, Git, etc.) and creating a tar file or similar containing source code and putting that tar file up on a download site, and (b) end-users who are getting the source code tar file, compiling that source code on their system and using the resulting binary. Obviously the folks in group (a) also compile the code and use the resulting binary, but the folks in group (b) don't have or need, often, all the tools for development that the folks in group (a) need.
So the use of the tools is geared towards this split, where the people in group (b) don't have access to autoconf, automake, etc.
When using autoconf, people generally check in the configure.ac file (input to autoconf) into source control but do not check in the output of autoconf, the configure script (some projects do check in the configure script of course: it's up to you).
When using automake, people generally check in the Makefile.am file (input to automake) but do not check in the output of automake: Makefile.in.
The configure script basically looks at your system for various optional elements that the package may or may not need, where they can be found, etc. Once it finds this information, it can use it to convert various XXX.in files (typically, but not solely, Makefile.in) into XXX files (for example, Makefile).
So the steps generally go like this: write configure.ac and Makefile.am and check them in. To build the project from source code control checkout, run autoconf to generate configure from configure.ac. Run automake to generate Makefile.in from Makefile.am. Run configure to generate Makefile from Makefile.in. Run make to build the product.
When you want to release the source code (if you're developing an open source product that makes source code releases) you run autoconf and automake, then bundle up the source code with the configure and Makefile.in files, so that people building your source code release just need make and a compiler and don't need any autotools.
Because the order of running autoconf and automake (and libtool if you use it) can be tricky there are scripts like autogen.sh and autoreconf, etc. which are checked into source control to be used by developers building from source control, but these are not needed/used by people building from the source code release tar file etc.
Autoconf and automake are often used together but you can use autoconf without automake, if you want to write your own Makefile.in.
For this error:
config.status: error: cannot find input file: `somedir/Makefile.in'
In the directory where the configure.ac is located in the Makefile.am add a line with the subdirectory somedir
SUBDIRS = somedir
Inside somedir put a Makefile.am with all the description. then run automaker --add-missing
A better description can be found in 7.1 Recursing subdirectories automake manual.
https://www.gnu.org/software/automake/manual/automake.html
Related
A user of xnec2c was trying to build on OSX and had autoconf issues because PKG_CHECK_MODULES could not be found since MacPorts puts it in a funny spot.
The user made autoconf work like so:
ACLOCAL_PATH=/opt/local/share/aclocal ./autogen.sh
ACLOCAL_PATH=/opt/local/share/aclocal ./configure
I would like to make it build on OSX without special user path hacks for ACLOCAL_PATH. Can that be done?
I started writing a possible fix below and realized it could an xyproblem so posed the question just above. However, if this starts any gears turning, then I would be open to a bit of special-casing for OSX:
For example, would it be possible (if not advisable) to detect:
Is PKG_CHECK_MODULES missing?
If so:
is it OSX?
Is [ -d /opt/local/share/aclocal ] true?
Does the macro exist there?
While aclocal has a few ways of appending to its search path (see https://www.gnu.org/software/automake/manual/html_node/Macro-Search-Path.html), you cannot modify that macro search path using code in configure.ac:
When the shell code in configure is run, it is too late, as the available macros have already been expanded. When autoconf (is it autoconf or something else? anyway, m4 called from autoreconf) generates configure from configure.ac by having m4 expand the macros it is also too late: aclocal has already collected the m4 macros it could find.
So what you would need is a step before the autoreconf run - which is beyond what I would consider a buildsystem needs to do.
What you can do: Put static strings into the top level Makefile.am file like e.g.
ACLOCAL_AMFLAGS = -I auto-m4 -I project-m4 -I /opt/local/share/aclocal
(this example uses auto-m4/ with AC_CONFIG_MACRO_DIR([auto-m4]) for the *.m4 files automatically put there by autoreconf/autopoint/libtoolize and project-m4/ for the project specific *.m4 files).
Of course, you should already have
m4_pattern_forbid([PKG_CHECK_MODULES])dnl
before invoking PKG_CHECK_MODULES for the first time so that the problem of the missing *.m4 file will be detected at the earliest possible time, i.e. when autoconf is about to generate a configure file with PKG_CHECK_MODULES unexpanded.
You could use some m4 code to print a lengthy error message if PKG_CHECK_MODULES is not defined. Something along the lines of (untested)
m4_ifndef([PKG_CHECK_MODULES], [dnl
m4_fatal([Could not find the PKG_CHECK_MODULES macro. Check that the pkg.m4 file is available and aclocal finds it (e.g. set ACLOCAL_PATH=/opt/local/share/aclocal).
])dnl
PKG_CHECK_MODULES([FOO], [foo])
Personally, I would go with m4_pattern_forbid and make sure OSX builds with homebrew work OOTB, and then document idiosyncrasies for building on rare and buggy systems like OSX with macports or SunOS without GNU tools in the INSTALL file.
Isn't it a bug in macports/OSX that aclocal there cannot find its *.m4 files? Shouldn't there be a dirlist file pointing to /opt/local/share/aclocal? Or perhaps they macports users should have an aclocal in their PATH which actually finds the macports macro files?
In any case, I would not consider it my build systems's job to fix a buggy system. You need to draw the line somewhere.
I'm trying to build a project that supports easily building 'stripped-down' distributions with undesired features removed. The project uses automake and is structured with potentially removable features in their own feature.am files that are included in the top-level Makefile.am file as
include feature.am
The problem is, if you remove a feature (and its feature.am file), autoreconf fails with
automake: error: cannot open < feature.am: No such file or directory
Is there a way to simply ignore this error and continue? I tried using
-include feature.am
like GNU make does, but this ends up simply copying that line into the Makefile.in file (and thus the Makefile), rather than having automake read it.
This is not possible because of the way automake works (which has next to nothing to do with how make includes files by itself.)
You can use AM_CONDITIONAL and autoconf's AC_ARG_ENABLE to build or not build the components that you don't want built. If you would like to have separate tarballs, that's more complicated and I would suggest you just ship separate packages for those features.
I have started recently to work with automake and autoconf and I am a little confused about how to distribute the code.
Usually when I get a code that works with a configure file, the only thing that I get is a confiure file and the code itself with the Makefile.am and so on. Usually I do
./configure
make
sudo make install
and thats all but when I generate my configure from a configure.ac file it toss out lots of files that I thought where just temporary but if I give the code to a partner and he makes configure, it doesn't work, it needs either remake the autoreconf or have all this files (namely instal.sh,config.sub...).
Is there something that I am missing? How can I distribute the code easily and clean?
I have searched a lot but I think I am searching for the right thing because I cannot find anything useful.
Thanks a lot in advance!
Automake provides a make dist target. This automatically creates a .tar.gz from your project. This archive is set up in such a way that the recipient can simply extract it and run the usual ./configure && make && make install invocation.
It is generally not recommended to check the files generated by Autotools into your repository. This is because they are derived objects. You wouldn't check in your .o files!
Usually, it is a good idea to provide a autogen.sh script that carries out any actions required to re-create the Autotools build infrastructure in a new version control system checkout. Often, it can be as simple as:
#!/bin/sh
autoreconf -i
Then set it chmod +x, and the instructions for compiling from a clean checkout can be ./autogen.sh && ./configure && make.
Maybe I am asking a silly question, but is there any way I can tell automake to put my project include files when I do a "make dist" but not when I do a "make install"?
Maybe I am not acting the right way, so to make it clearer I will tell what I need.
I need to deploy my applications in an embedded board and I use "make install" in a script to create a package that can be copied to the target board.
On the other side, I'd like to be able to update my toolchain with my libraries and include files.
In the first situation, I can't have any fat wasting my limited flash memory but just the necessary things to make the application to run.
In the second one, I need to have headers, pkgconfig and all of the stuff needed for development.
How I am supposed to configure my "Makefile.am" and which rules to expect so that I can reach my goals?
Really thanks.
I just want to be able to set a given script SUID, other data files
R/W arbitrary permissions and so on.
I think adding the $(DESTDIR) 's makefile user variable do that.
As it is not define by automake, "make install" use it empty,
but dpkg-buildpackage define it with the "make dist" target.
(see: http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/DESTDIR.html#DESTDIR)
It help me to manage setuid install:
configure.ac:
# Add option to disable setuid during install, use in distcheck
AC_ARG_ENABLE(setuid-install,
AS_HELP_STRING(
[--disable-setuid-install do not set setuid flags during install]),
[enable_setuid_install=$enableval], [enable_setuid_install="yes"])
AM_CONDITIONAL(SETUID_INSTALL, test x"$enable_setuid_install" = "xyes")
Makefile.am:
if SETUID_INSTALL
install-data-hook:
/bin/chmod 4755 $(DESTDIR)$(bindir)myBinary
endif
I don't think autoconf was really designed to be a generic installer/uninstaller that'll give you that kind of control without at least some pain. You're looking for something like dpkg-buildpackage or rpmbuild where you can split up the output of make install into specific subpackages so you can have:
Package foo be for the embedded board and possibly toolchain, depending on what's in the package (DSOs, executables, and other files necessary at runtime)
Package foo-dev or foo-devel for the toolchain (headers, static libs, other files needed for development).
I am trying to install a rubygem which keeps on trying to read a library which is not available.
grep: /usr/lib64/libgdbm.la: No such file or directory
/bin/sed: can't read /usr/lib64/libgdbm.la: No such file or directory
libtool: link: /usr/lib64/libgdbm.la' is not a valid libtool archive
In order to work around this, I installed my own libgdbm and provided the path to the libgdbm in the makefile LDFLAGs but to no avail.
Any help is much appreciated.
This rubygem seems to do dirty stuff, since any clean library search (-L or pkg-config) would have resulted in a message like "library/package gdbm not found". And especially the grep-and-sed procedure on the la file seems really dirty. Make sure Santa knows that the author of this gem gets no presents this year.
The gem probably has the path to the libtool archive hardcoded. First of all, try to grep for /usr/lib64/libgdbm.la in the Makefile of the gem. Change the hardcoded path, and make sure the installation script has no write permissions on any system directories, because it seems to run wild with seds.
Libtool requires intimate knowledge of your compiler suite and operating system in order to be able to create shared libraries and link against them properly. When you install the libtool distribution, a system-specific libtool script is installed into your binary directory.
However, when you distribute libtool with your own packages, you do not always know the compiler suite and operating system that are used to compile your package.
For this reason, libtool must be configured before it can be used. This idea should be familiar to anybody who has used a GNU configure script. configure runs a number of tests for system features, then generates the Makefiles (and possibly a config.h header file), after which you can run make and build the package.
Libtool adds its own tests to your configure script in order to generate a libtool script for the installer's host machine. For this you can play with LT_INIT macro in configure.ac.
So in short, if your package has configure file, run it before running Make
make distclean //clean up all the previous generated files
autoconf //or autoreconf to generate configure script from configure.ac and configure.in
automake //to generate new Makefile.in from Makefile.ac
./configure //to generate new Makefile and libtool