httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <arfrever....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for T&R
Date Sat, 29 Nov 2008 22:07:22 GMT
2008-11-29 22:47:45 Ruediger Pluem napisał(a):
> 
> On 11/29/2008 08:17 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > 2008-11-29 15:49:36 Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group napisał(a):
> >>> -----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht-----
> >>> Von: "Pl�m, R�diger, VF-Group" ] 
> >>> Gesendet: Samstag, 29. November 2008 15:19
> >>> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
> >>> Betreff: Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for T&R
> >>>
> >>>  
> >>>
> >>>> -----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht-----
> >>>> Von: William A. Rowe, Jr.  
> >>>> Gesendet: Samstag, 29. November 2008 04:06
> >>>> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
> >>>> Betreff: Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for T&R
> >>>>
> >>>> Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> >>>>> Any objections going with autoconf 2.63 and libtool 1.5.26?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If autoconf 2.63 is seen as too risky I would go back to 
> >>>> autoconf 2.61.
> >>>>
> >>>> I see no remaining issues for 2.63... solid choice.  The endianess
> >>>> issues of 2.62 should all be addressed.
> >>>>
> >>> autoconf 2.63 still emits the warnings for APR / APR-UTIL configure
> >>> options passed to it. The following patch should fix this:
> >>>
> >>> Index: configure.in
> >>> ===================================================================
> >>> --- configure.in        (revision 721659)
> >>> +++ configure.in        (working copy)
> >>> @@ -18,6 +18,10 @@
> >>>  sinclude(build/find_apu.m4)
> >>>  sinclude(acinclude.m4)
> >>>
> >>> +dnl We don't want our confingure to emit any warnings for any
> >>> +dnl APR / APR-UTIL configure options
> > 
> > Why do you want to pass invalid options to configure?
> > (Also: s/confingure/configure/)
> 
> 
> I hope the comments to my patch below will explain this.
> 
> > 
> >>> +AC_DISABLE_OPTION_CHECKING
> >>> +
> >>>  dnl XXX we can't just use AC_PREFIX_DEFAULT because that 
> >>> isn't subbed in
> >>>  dnl by configure until it is too late.  Is that how it 
> >>> should be or not?
> >>>  dnl Something seems broken here.
> >>>
> >>> Any objections?
> >>>
> >>> Otherwise I would commit to trunk and propose it for backport.
> >> This does not work with older autoconf versions :-(.
> >>
> >> Anyone an idea for a code that only calls
> >>
> >> AC_DISABLE_OPTION_CHECKING
> >>
> >> if it is defined?
> > 
> > ifdef([AC_DISABLE_OPTION_CHECKING], [AC_DISABLE_OPTION_CHECKING])
> 
> That did the trick. Thanks. In my first test I missed the [] around the
> first parameter.
> 
> So I propose the following patch for trunk which worked fine for me with
> autoconf 2.60 from SuSE 10.2 and vanilla autoconf 2.63:
> 
> Index: configure.in
> ===================================================================
> --- configure.in        (Revision 721717)
> +++ configure.in        (Arbeitskopie)
> @@ -18,6 +18,15 @@
>  sinclude(build/find_apu.m4)
>  sinclude(acinclude.m4)
> 
> +dnl Later versions of autoconf (>= 2.62) by default cause the produced
> +dnl configure script to emit at least warnings when it comes across unknown
> +dnl command line options. These versions also have the macro
> +dnl AC_DISABLE_OPTION_CHECKING defined which turns this off by default.
> +dnl We want to have this turned off here since our configure calls can
> +dnl contain options for APR / APR-UTIL configure that are unkown to us.

s/unkown/unknown/

> +dnl So avoid confusing the user by turning this off. See also PR 45221.

Alternatively you could add some options corresponding to APR/APR-Util options:

AC_ARG_WITH([ldap], [AS_HELP_STRING([--with-ldap], [Support LDAP in APR-Util (ignored when
using external APR-Util)])])

> +ifdef([AC_DISABLE_OPTION_CHECKING], [AC_DISABLE_OPTION_CHECKING])
> +
>  dnl XXX we can't just use AC_PREFIX_DEFAULT because that isn't subbed in
>  dnl by configure until it is too late.  Is that how it should be or not?
>  dnl Something seems broken here.
> 
> 
> Any objections?
> 
> As soon as this is in trunk I would propose it for backport and use
> autoconf 2.63 for T&R if this gets backported or should I stay with
> 2.61 and we try 2.63 for the next T&R?

-- 
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis

Mime
View raw message