On 22-11-2017 12:13, Roland Knall wrote:
I agree with you in general, still at some companies installing from
source might not be an option. And it might also implode on you, if you
then have to search for dependencies of dependencies of dependencies ....
Especially on older LTS distros this can be quite some work, and you
tend to get stuck at certain dependency incompatibilites.
People tend to accept building custom versions of depending libraries
though. In my experience this acceptance get's a lot smaller with the
general build environment though.
Don't take this discussion the wrong way, as I said I was just wondering
if it is generally something we should talk about. In no way would I
want to force the autotools to certain version.
But please update the dependency pages in the wiki and the developer
documentation with the required version, so that maintainer can take the
new version into account.
OK, I will work on the documentation later. And your input is valued by
me. There's nothing to take the wrong way. :-)
Coming back to the usefulness of having autotools around, I completely
understand the argument for dropping it. I think some of the work I've
been doing removes some merit to it but it's still completely logical
and a good discussion to have.
I might have more comments on this later.
cheers
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 1:06 PM, João Valverde
<joao.valverde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:joao.valverde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
On 22-11-2017 11:26, João Valverde wrote:
On 22-11-2017 11:02, Roland Knall wrote:
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:45 AM, João Valverde
<joao.valverde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:joao.valverde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:joao.valverde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:joao.valverde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>> wrote:
On 22-11-2017 08:37, Roland Knall wrote:
Might be a stupid question but on my account, only
Linux
machines are now capable of building Wireshark out
of the box
with autotools on default, right?
I'm not sure what you mean by "on default", but it
seems unlikely
that anyone could build Wireshark without having to
install at least
one dependency.
BSDs usually supply a gmake command for GNU Make. Not
sure if it is
installed by default.
Installing a dependency is one thing, and fine by me. This
includes installing a newer version of make. But for certain
builders, that might not be an option (older Linux systems)
as no packages might exist, and they will have to build from
source. In those cases, building the make-system from
source, just to use autotools is too much to ask for in my
book. All those people have already an alternative in place
though with cmake, but still, autotools sets the bar a
little higher then cmake, and that is in my opinion not a
good idea if both systems should be equal by design. So if
they should be equal, that would also require the same
prerequisites, or at least the same level of obtainability.
That would be "installing a newer version of make" on OSX
because of licensing issues.
I don't understand either your logic of build systems "equal by
design". I would hope not, that seems kind of pointless.
We are giving a lot of thought to ancient systems with all sorts
of restrictions. I don't disagree with that, it's generally a
good thing to be considerate, but it remains to be seen the
impact on systems other than OSX.
For OSX please use CMake instead.
And I would like to answer a point that is frankly starting to grate
on me (please don't take that personally, it's not).
If you are installing Wireshark dependencies from binary
repositories you should be installing Wireshark from a binary
package too. If your vendor does not provide one complain to them.
If you are building Wireshark from source presumably you can also
install dependencies from source. It's not black magic.
Having a binary repository is in no way a requirement to use a
UNIX-like system.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
<https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev>
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
<https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev>
mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>?subject=unsubscribe
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe