Re: [PATCH 1/1] autotools: do more cleanup when in do_configure

[Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Tue, 2018-09-11 at 09:30 +0800, ChenQi wrote:
> On 09/10/2018 06:24 PM, Burton, Ross wrote:
> > On 10 September 2018 at 11:02, Chen Qi <Qi.Chen@windriver.com>
> > wrote:
> > > I met the following error when compiling some projects.
> > > 
> > > > configure: error: `LDFLAGS' has changed since the previous run:
> > > > configure:   former value:  `-Wl,-O1 -Wl,--hash-style=gnu -Wl,-
> > > > -as-needed'
> > > > configure:   current value: `-Wl,-O1 -Wl,--hash-style=gnu -Wl,-
> > > > -as-needed -fstack-protector-strong -Wl,-z,relro,-z,now'
> > > 
> > > [snip]
> > > > configure: error: changes in the environment can compromise the
> > > > build
> > > > configure: error: run `make distclean' and/or `rm
> > > > .././config.cache' and start over
> > > 
> > > I think when some recipe inherits autotools-brokensep, it should
> > > try to
> > > do more cleanups before configure. So also do 'make distclean'
> > > and remove
> > > config.cache just as what the error message told us.
> > 
> > Does just removing config.cache work for your problem?
> 
> I guess it should, but I haven't checked.
> >    I'm concerned
> > about running a distclean because some upstreams abuse that target
> > and
> > then can't rebuild.
> 
> Hmm... I hold the opposite opinion.
> I suspect that just doing a `make clean' is more likely to break
> rebuild 
> while doing a `make distclean' should reduce the possibility.
> 
> Conceptually, `make clean' is followed by `make' while `make
> distclean' 
> is followed by `configure & make'.
> At rebuild, we are doing `configure & make'; so we should use `make 
> distclean', in theory.
> 
> I'll revisit this issue later and do more investigation.
> > Also obviously the proper fix is to not use autotools-brokensep in
> > the
> > recipe in the first place.
> 
> You are right.
> The recipe is cyrus-sasl and the newly updated version has fixed to
> use 
> autotools instead of autotools-brokensep.
> 
> To summarize, ideally we should have no recipe inheriting 
> autotools-brokensep. But in reality, it's almost not possible.
> I sent out this patch because I thought it would be helpful for such 
> recipes.

I seem to remember trying distclean when we first implemented this
code. A lot of tarballs have generated files in them which distclean
will remove but we lack the code/dependencies to regenerate them.
"clean" was something we could get to work, "distclean" led to a lot of
build failures.

If we were to consider doing this it would need a lot of testing.

Cheers,

Richard