6 ms·

The tree only contains configure.in, not the generated configure output, and Makefile.am, not the generated Makefile.in. You do need the entire autotools suite

The tree only contains configure.in, not the generated configure output, and Makefile.am, not the generated Makefile.in. You do need the entire autotools suite installed for it to build. Why they published it like this is beyond me, however. The whole point of autotools is not making your users install them (unlike CMake and virtually every other build system for C there is).

readams 7y ago
That's not true. If you build from a dist tarball, you do not need auto tools installed. You usually do if you build from a git repo, however.
- infogulch 7y ago
  How/why is a dist tarball not exactly the same as a zipped up git tree?
  - atq2119 7y ago
    The parent you're replying to answers that question. And if your question is meant rhetorically, it doesn't contribute to the discussion either.
    - infogulch 7y ago
      I'm asking genuinely. No, parent answers the question, "What is the difference between the git tree and a dist tarball?" Which is self-evidently (and unhelpfully) "you don't need autotools installed with the dist tarball". My questions are: Why does this difference exist? Why would you not track everything necessary to build a library in git? How is the dist tarball built differently than just zipping the current git tree?
  - wongarsu 7y ago
    Same as a npm package is usually js code and doesn't require you to run the typescript compiler, a dist tarball shouldn't require you to run autotools but just contain their output.
  - UncleEntity 7y ago
    "make dist" does stuff other than just make a tarball -- like insert a version number into a header &etc.
- beefhash 7y ago
  I think we misunderstood each other? "It" in my post referred to the Rust cargo package in question. The package ships configure.in, but not the generated configure. You do need autoconf for configure.in -> configure. Similarly, it ships Makefile.am, but not the generated Makefile.in for use with configure. Note how I said "The whole point of autotools is not making your users install them".

readams 7y ago

That's not true. If you build from a dist tarball, you do not need auto tools installed. You usually do if you build from a git repo, however.

infogulch 7y ago
How/why is a dist tarball not exactly the same as a zipped up git tree?
- atq2119 7y ago
  The parent you're replying to answers that question. And if your question is meant rhetorically, it doesn't contribute to the discussion either.
  - infogulch 7y ago
    I'm asking genuinely. No, parent answers the question, "What is the difference between the git tree and a dist tarball?" Which is self-evidently (and unhelpfully) "you don't need autotools installed with the dist tarball". My questions are: Why does this difference exist? Why would you not track everything necessary to build a library in git? How is the dist tarball built differently than just zipping the current git tree?
- wongarsu 7y ago
  Same as a npm package is usually js code and doesn't require you to run the typescript compiler, a dist tarball shouldn't require you to run autotools but just contain their output.
- UncleEntity 7y ago
  "make dist" does stuff other than just make a tarball -- like insert a version number into a header &etc.
beefhash 7y ago
I think we misunderstood each other? "It" in my post referred to the Rust cargo package in question. The package ships configure.in, but not the generated configure. You do need autoconf for configure.in -> configure. Similarly, it ships Makefile.am, but not the generated Makefile.in for use with configure. Note how I said "The whole point of autotools is not making your users install them".