On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 10:35:53AM +0100, Pino Toscano wrote:
On Friday, 10 January 2020 23:13:35 CET Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2020 at 06:37:49PM +0100, Pino Toscano wrote:
> > There is nothing in the Python bindings that require results from
> > configure, and gnulib is not used already.
> > ---
> > generator/python.ml | 6 ------
> > python/handle.c | 2 --
> > 2 files changed, 8 deletions(-)
>
> I guess the motivation is because we cannot create this header
> correctly from PyPi so it'll be wrong there?
That is the thing: config.h is not created at all when building the
Python binding (either as part of libguestfs, or when building the
standalone tar.gz dist), but instead the one from libguestfs is used.
So for clear terminology let's call these situations:
- libguestfs build: Python bindings are built normally as part of libguestfs
- PyPi build: Python bindings are built from the python-specific tar gz file
For the libguestfs build case we create config.h from ./configure.
For the PyPi build case we bundle config.h (which is wrong - not
arguing with that). Because in the PyPi case there is no real
equivalent of ./configure we cannot create config.h properly.
> I still think we might
> need this header when compiling libguestfs Python bindings in the
> normal (not PyPi) case, even if it happens to work right now.
Actually, it happens to _not_ work right now:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1627964
the libguestfs config.h is shipped in the tarball, and the content of
that file depends on the way the binding was configured from the
libguestfs build that created it.
Yup, this is wrong, not arguing there.
So in case of that bug, the tarball
was created with Python 2. And while patches #3, #4, and #5 should fix
the majority of the visible cases of this issue, there are still
potential issues: config.h defines a series of macros (_GNU_SOURCE,
__EXTENSIONS__, etc) that change the way things are built, and strictly
depend on the platform.
> Could we instead defend these with #ifdef HAVE_CONFIG_H? That way the
> header shouldn't be used for PyPi and shouldn't need to be bundled (so
> patch #7 would be OK).
I'll reverse the question: if building the standalone tarball works fine
with no config.h, why shouldn't the build-in-libguestfs do the same?
The Python bindings probably don't need the contents of config.h at
the moment, but that isn't to say that config.h might not be necessary
on some more obscure platform either now or in the future.
In the libguestfs build case using HAVE_CONFIG_H would ensure this
keeps working, while also preventing us from needing to bundle the
incorrect config.h for the PyPi build case. I think it achieves what
you're trying to do (fix the PyPi case) with least risk.
The bindings do not use gnulib and use only few system headers and
APIs,
and nothing of the config.h content really matters (the closest thing is
HAVE_PYTHON, which is obviously true...).
In the end, it is just a binding that wraps the C API for a different
language (Python in this case), so it definitely _ought to_ not depend
on the way libguestfs itself was configured/built.
Moreover: the same situation applies to the other bindings too (those
with C parts, of course).
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat
http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog:
http://rwmj.wordpress.com
virt-builder quickly builds VMs from scratch
http://libguestfs.org/virt-builder.1.html