> -----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
|