Benjamin Kaduk <ka...@mit.edu> writes: > Sure, and thanks for the report -- upstream made this change in
Thanks for the explanation; I'd gathered something of the sort from commit logs. > I'd be vaguely curious if you wanted to drop in the cc-wrapper from a full > source tree and see if it produced anything useful, though I agree that > just configuring with --without-ctf-tools would be a fine workaround for > now. I'd be surprised to see any practical benefit to pushing forward on Linux. (kFreeBSD or Dyson might get something out of it, though.) That said, I suppose it probably wouldn't hurt, apart from moderately(?) increasing the footprint of module builds on affected hosts. At any rate, please note that cc-wrapper bakes in the detected paths to these tools, so if you do push forward, you should either drop in cc-wrapper.in or add a build dependency on ctfutils. (AFAICT, in the latter case you could still leave openafs-modules-*'s dependencies as is.) > Thanks for the report, Thanks for looking into it! -- Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at alum.mit.edu, ucko at debian.org) http://www.mit.edu/~amu/ | http://stuff.mit.edu/cgi/finger/?a...@monk.mit.edu
