httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rainer Jung <rainer.j...@kippdata.de>
Subject Re: Bumping autoconf AC_PREREQ to 2.60?
Date Sat, 12 Jun 2010 22:11:41 GMT
On 12.06.2010 21:07, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> On Friday 11 June 2010, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>>> Modified: httpd/httpd/trunk/configure.in
>>> URL:
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/configure.in?rev=
>>> 951893&r1=951892&r2=951893&view=diff
>>> ================================================================
>>> ============== --- httpd/httpd/trunk/configure.in (original)
>>> +++ httpd/httpd/trunk/configure.in Sun Jun  6 16:54:51 2010
>>> @@ -170,6 +170,9 @@ dnl PCRE and for our config tests will b
>>>
>>>   AC_PROG_CC
>>>   AC_PROG_CPP
>>>
>>>
>>> +dnl Try to get c99 support for variadic macros
>>> +AC_PROG_CC_C99
>>> +
>>
>> This test is only present since autoconf>= 2.60.
>> Since 2.59 is still delivered with RedHat 4 / 5 this does not work
>> there, but the error is non fatal.
>
> This means it is not a good idea to run buildconf on RH4/5, but a
> configure created somewhere else with autoconf 2.60 should work fine.
> So this mainly affects httpd developers.
>
> We can either bump AC_PREREQ to 2.60, making it impossible to run
> buildconf on RH4/5, or we can include the code for AC_PROG_CC_C99
> (about 200 lines) from autoconf 2.60 in httpd's build system. The
> current state seems like a bad idea, because of the potential to ship
> a broken configure in release tarballs.
>
> Preferences? Is anyone here developing on RHEL?

No problem for me.

2.59 is 6.5 years old, 2.60 4 years. Most recent is 2.65. The last time 
there was discussion about this (Nov 2008)

http://marc.info/?t=122787193500002&r=1&w=2

the result seems to have been to recommend 2.61.

Regards,

Rainer

Mime
View raw message