apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: Time for 1.3.3
Date Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:53:35 GMT
Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> On Thursday 07 August 2008, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> Stefan, my goal is to have a working 2.62 ready package, so I'll
>> take a closer look, but if other folks would take a peek at this
>> flaw, we'd really appreciate it.  It just can't be that hard to fix
>> (if I had cycles I would have already investigated).  Some flags
>> are missing somehow for the testrand target.
> 
> The problem is that AC_C_BIGENDIAN is broken in autoconf 2.62. This 
> will result in APR_IS_BIGENDIAN in apr.h getting the wrong value, 
> which might break other software and not just the test. In the case 
> of testrand, the problematic code is in random/unix/sha2.c and not in 
> testrand.c.
> 
> Is there really something in 2.62 you need, or could you simply use 
> 2.61 to generate the configure in the tarball? Alternatively, you 
> could grab the patch reverting AC_C_BIGENDIAN to the 2.61 behaviour 
> from some linux distro and use the patched autoconf.

Given a choice between a broken AC_C_BIGENDIAN test from 2.62, and the
known-good test existing in 2.61, I'm going with 2.61.

http://www.mail-archive.com/autoconf@gnu.org/msg17413.html

indicates that they are ready to address this and recognize what they had
done (still no indication they violated the project's first principal w.r.t.
not emitting stupid warnings for subpackages, a bug we have worked around),
but given that Early August is past, I'm not waiting for 2.63.

So this package is going to be back to 2.61, and at a future date we'll be
ready to adopt 2.63.  Maybe a release.sh patch to refuse 2.62 would be
appropriate at this point :)


Mime
View raw message