httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group" <ruediger.pl...@vodafone.com>
Subject Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for T&R
Date Sat, 29 Nov 2008 14:49:36 GMT
 

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: "Plüm, Rüdiger, 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
> 
>  
> 
> > -----Ursprüngliche 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
> +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?

Regards

Rüdiger

Mime
View raw message