Beside the lack of up-to-date and sane documentation about autotools (for which I started my guide that you should remember is still only extended in my free time), there is a second huge user experience problem: the skeleton build system produced by the
Now, I do understand why they created it, the problem is that as it is, it mostly creates fubar’d
configure.ac skeletons, that confuse newcomers and causes a lot of grief to packagers and to users of source-based distributions (and those few who still think of building software manually without getting it from their distribution).
The problem with
autoscan is that it embodies again the “GNU spirit”, or actually the GNU spirit of the original days, back when GNU tried to support any operating system, to “give freedom” to users forced to use those OSes rather than Linux itself. Given that nowadays FSF seems to interest itself mostly on discouraging anybody from using non-free operating systems (or even, non-GNU based operating systems) – sometimes failing and actually discouraging companies from using Free Software altogether – it seems like they had a change of ideas in the middle of that. But that’s something for another post.
Anyway, assuming that you’ll have to make your software work on any operating system out there is something that you are well unlikely to do. First of all, a number of projects nowadays, for good or bad, target Linux only; sometimes even just GNU/Linux (that is they don’t support running on other C libraries) because they require specific features from the kernel, specific drivers and other requirements like that. Secondly, you can easily require your users to have a sane environment to begin with; unless you really have to run on a 15 years old operating system, you can assume at least some basic standard support. I have already written about pointless autotools checks but I guess I didn’t make it too clear yet.
But it’s not just the idea of just dropping support for anything that does not support a given standard, whatever that might be (C99, POSIX.1-2008, whatever), it’s more that the
configure.ac generated by
autoscan is not going to make it magically work on a number of operating systems it didn’t support before. What it does, for the most part, is adding a number of
AC_CHECK_FUNCS calls, which will verify the presence of various functions and headers that your software is using… but it won’t change the software to provide alternatives; heck there might not be alternatives.
So if your software keeps on using
strings.h (which is POSIX) and you check for it in configure phase, you’re just making the configure phase longer without any solution, because you’re not making use of the results from the configure phase. Again, this often translates to things like the following:
Okay, so what is the problem with this idea? Well, to begin with, I have seen it so many times without an idea of why it is there! A number of people expect that since
autoscan added the check, and thus they have the definition, they have to use it. But if you use a function that is defined in that header, and the header is not there, what are you going to do? Not including it is not going to make your software any more portable, if anything you’re going to get an implicit declaration of the function, and probably fail later at runtime. So, if it’s not an optional header, or function, just running the check and using the definition is not enough.
A common alternative is to fail the configure step if the header or function is not found, while it makes a bit more sense, I still dislike that option, Sure you might be able to tell the reason why the function is needed and whether they have to install something else or upgrade their system, but in truth that made much more sense when there was near to no common ground between operating systems, and users were the common people running the
./configure script. Nowadays, that’s a task that is often limited to packagers, that know their systems much better. The alternative to failing in
configure is failing during build, and it’s generally not too bad. Especially since you’ll be failing build for any condition you didn’t know about beforehand.
I have another reason to provide, as for why you shouldn’t be running all those tests for things you don’t support a fallback for:
autoconf provides means to pass external libraries and include directives to the compiler; since having each package provide its replacement for common function is going to cause a tremendous amount of code duplication (which in turn may cause a lot of work for packages if one of them is broken, such as
dtoa() anybody remembers that?), I’m always surprised that there aren’t many more libraries that provide compatibility replacements for the functions missing in the system C library (gnulib does not count as it’s solving the problem with code replication, if not duplication). Rather than fail, or trying to understand whether you can build or not depending on the OS used, just assume their presence if you can’t go without, and leave it to the developers running that system to come up with a fix, which might involve additional tests, or might not.
My suggestion here is thus to start considering first the operating systems you’re targeting directly; try to find what actually changes between them; in most cases, for instance, you might have still pieces of very-old systems around, like the include for
malloc.h that is only useful if you want to call functions such as
memalign() but is not used for
malloc() since, well, ever (
stdlib.h is enough for that), and that will cause errors on both FreeBSD and OS X if included. So once you find that a header is not present in some of your desired operating system, look up what replaces it, then make sure to check for it properly; that means using something like this:
dnl in configure.ac
AC_CHECK_HEADERS([stdint.h inttypes.h], [break;])
/* in your C code */
This way you won’t be running checks for a number of alternative headers on all systems: most modern C99-compatible system libraries will have
stdint.h available, even though a few older systems will need for
inttypes.h to be discovered instead. This might sound cheap, since it’s just two headers, but especially when you’re looking for the correct place of a library header, you might end up with an alternative among three or four headers, and add a bunch of alternatives here, and you’re going to have problems. The same trick can be used for functions, and the description is also on my guide so and I’ll soon expand it to cover functions as well.
It shouldn’t “sound wrong” to have a
configure.ac with near to no
AC_CHECK_* call at all! Most of the tests
autoconf will do for you, and you have the ability to add further, but there is no need to strain at using them when they are unneeded. Take as example the feng configure.ac — it has a few checks, of course, but they are limited to a few optional features that we workaround if missing, in the code itself. And some I would probably just remove (like making ipv6 support optional… I’d sincerely just make it work if it’s found on the system, as you still need to enable it in the configuration file to use it anyway).
And please, please, just don’t use autoscan, from now on!