Code Review Request: Simple new build system fix

Andrew Hughes gnu.andrew at
Wed Mar 13 14:01:54 UTC 2013

----- Original Message -----
> Hello,
> I created a bug for you:
> 8009988: build-infra: Fix configure output for zip debuginfo check
> As David says, we haven't decided on 2.67, but I would guess that a
> majority of the commits have been with that version. This change is a
> first step towards enforcing a specific version and I'm ok with that.

Yes, I've been out of the loop a bit on this new build system.
When I saw the huge diff my first attempt generated, I just assumed
I should be using the same version that had been used previously.

> The actual fix looks good to. You will still need a JDK reviewer to
> ok
> it. Also, please notify me when you push this so that the closed
> version
> of the configure script may also be regenerated.

Ok, no problem.  I await a review from someone like David or Kelly.

Is there a preferred tree to push to?  I spotted this when just trying
to build so it's against jdk8 at the moment (which I obviously can't push
to).  Perhaps build?

> /Erik
> On 2013-03-13 13:18, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> > I've finally found time to look at the new build system (well,
> > there seems to no longer be any choice ;)
> > and so thought I start out with a simple fix.
> >
> >
> >
> > At the moment, if disable-zip-debug-info is not specified, the
> > configure output is:
> >
> > checking if we should zip debug-info files...
> >
> > with no result as $enable_zip_debug_info is unset.
> >
> > This simple patch makes the option use the more standard
> > AC_ARG_ENABLE form used elsewhere and will
> > print the default ('yes') when the option is unspecified:
> >
> > checking if we should zip debug-info files... yes
> >
> > What actually took longer than the fix was updating the generated
> > files.  We seem to have already settled
> > on autoconf 2.67 for generating the configure script, so my initial
> > attempt threw up a huge number of changes
> > as the system install is 2.69.  I was able to get it down to
> > something closer to what is expected by installing
> > a local copy of 2.67 but it's still not perfect.  I don't know why.
> >  I've never been a fan of including generated
> > files for this reason.
> >
> > So this script also updates to see if there is an
> > autoconf-2.67 available and use that in preference
> > to autoconf if it is.  I also added a little debug output so we can
> > see which autoconf is being used in
> >
> > If this is ok, can you please allocate it a bug ID and let me know
> > which tree to commit it to.
> >
> > Thanks,

Andrew :)

Free Java Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. (

PGP Key: 248BDC07 (
Fingerprint = EC5A 1F5E C0AD 1D15 8F1F  8F91 3B96 A578 248B DC07

More information about the build-dev mailing list