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).
Related
I am trying to build a library with a different build system, but files in the library require a config.h header file that is generated after running the configure scripts generated by autoconf.
This is the sequence of steps I am following to try and generate the config.h file that is needed
autoreconf -ivf
./configure --disable-dependency-tracking
The build system guarantees that the library gflags will be linked and the headers will be available at preprocessing time. But the configure script exits with the following error
configure: error: Please install google-gflags library
Is there some way I can get the list of required libraries (such as gflags) and then pass arguments to the configure script that tells it to assume that this library exists on the system? I went through the help output for both autoreconf and ./configure and wasn't able to figure this out.
Sorry for the long explanation and problem. I am very new to autoconf, etc.
The answer to your question is: no, it is not possible to get a list of dependencies from autotools.
Why?
Well, autotools doesn't track dependencies at all.
Instead, it checks whether specific features are present on the system (e.g. a given header-file; or a given library file).
Now a specific header file can come from a variety of sources, e.g. depending on your distribution the foo.h header can be installed via
libfoo-dev (Debian and derivatives)
foo-devel (Fedora)
foo (upstream)
...
In your specific case, the maintainers of your project output a nice error message telling you to install a given package by name.
The maintainers of your project also chose to abort with a fatal error if a given dependency is not available.
The reason might well be, that the project simply won't work without that dependency, and that is impossible to compile the program without it.
Example
Your project might be written in C++ and thus require a C++-compiler.
Obviously there is little use in passing some flags to ./configure so it assumes that there is a C++-compiler available if in reality there is none.
There is hope
However, not all is bad.
Your configure script might will have the ability to disable certain features (that appear to be hard requirements by default).
Just check ./configure --help and look for flags like
--enable-FOO
--disable-FOO
--with-BAR
--without-BAR
automation?
One thing to know about autotools, is that configure really is a program (the source-code being configure.ac) written in some arcane programming language (involving bash and m4),
This means that it can practically have any behavior, and there is no single standard way to achieve "dependecy tracking".
What you're trying to do will not work as umläute already said. On the other hand, depending on the package you're trying to build, you may be able to tell ./configure that a given library is there even if it isn't.
For instance if the script uses pkg-config to check for the presence of a library, you can use FOO_CFLAGS and FOO_LIBS to override the presence checking and telling it "yes those packages are there, you just don't know how to find them", but these are very package-specific so you may have to provide more information if that's what you're looking for.
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
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.
I have a configure script that writes a Makefile (from Makefile.in). The clean target currently removes everything created from within the makefile, but it doesn't delete the makefile itself. (I'm not using Autotools as you can probably tell)
My question therefore: Should the makefile also remove itself, requiring the developer to run ./configure again?
On the one hand, I want the clean target to properly clean up the source tree. But, on the other hand, I'd like to be able to type make clean test to check that everything's working as it should before committing; Running the configure script again seems weird somehow.
This is a stylistic question, rather than a technical question. The best place to go for answers is the automake manual, which will tell you:
`make clean'
Erase from the build tree the files built by `make all'.
`make distclean'
Additionally erase anything `./configure' created.
So, no, make clean should not delete Makefile. make distclean should delete Makefile, since it's created by configure not make all.
One of the best things about autotools is that they are consistent and standard. It's best to not irritate your users by flouting those standards.
I'd probably have a separate target for that. So clean would leave them able to build again but distclean or realclean or allclean or something would force a reconfigure. You could see which autotools clean target (if any) has similar behaviour.
The purpose of the clean target is usually to remove interim files, so you can start your compile from scratch. See more here For instance, a common makefile target is "clean," which generally performs actions that clean up after the compiler--removing object files and the resulting executable.
I am making a configure.ac file for a tool i made and i need to check whether pdflatex is installed in the users system. How do i do it ? For checking for other libraries i simply included the test programs using AC_COMPILE_IFELSE, but i dont know if pdflatex can be invoked from the program.
Also is it regular practise to install all the required packages automatically using some script or i can just specify in the readme file which packages are required and then its upto user to install those packages.
You can use AC_CHECK_PROG([have_pdflatex], [pdflatex], [yes], [no]) to simply check if it exists and set have_pdflatex to yes if so. It's more likely that you'll want to use AC_PATH_PROG([PDFLATEX], [pdflatex]) to find the actual path of the program if it exists and store it in PDFLATEX.
I think it's best to let the user install the prerequisites themself. You don't know how they install their software (apt? yum? pacman? emerge? source?) and it wouldn't be worth the effort to try to cover all cases. It's sufficient to just mention them in the README and to test for them with Autoconf macros.