apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@lyra.org>
Subject Re: cvs commit: apr/build find_apr.m4
Date Sat, 09 Feb 2002 02:16:57 GMT
On Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 10:46:46PM +1000, Brian Havard wrote:
> >  -    elif test -f "$withval/apr-config"; then
> >  +    elif test -x "$withval/apr-config"; then
> >         apr_found="yes"
> >         apr_config="$withval/apr-config"
> >       elif test -x "$withval" && $withval --help > /dev/null 2>&1
; then
> Was there any actual need to do this? I ask because it breaks the OS/2
> build due to the fact that OS/2 has no 'x' bit in the file system. "test
> -x" is only true if the file has a .exe extension which apr-config
> obviously does not.

Well, the apr-config file is generated, so it normally comes out without an
executable flag. We then have a chmod +x (see at the end of configure.in)
which should get run during the generation step.

I switched to -x to avoid the case of an apr-config that wasn't make
executable, and to avoid thinking we have a valid apr-config and then try to
run the thing.

That said: I'd be fine with loosening it up to just -f, as long as you put
in some "dnl" comments on why we chose -f rather than -x. (otherwise, three
years from now, somebody will go and patch it to put the -x flags back in
there :-)


Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

View raw message