On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 08:16:12AM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: > On 08/16/2017 11:51 PM, Dmitry V. Levin wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 08:15:02PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: > >> The subtle test is too subtle for its own good, this patch breaks > >> thirty six testcases on 32bit architectures. > >> > >> This reverts commit 1eadabe4453ef32eb6c3bc837094e1ca998affcc. [leaving non-technical part aside for a while] > But as the > revert commit message says, the test is way too subtle for my liking, I > never liked it at all because of that. In retrospective, that distrust > combined with the clock-is-ticking situation ... I don't think I ever > actually thought to suspect fakechroot in this case.
Sorry but your distrust of AC_CHECK_HEADERS([fts.h]) looks rather irrational. What kind of doubts do you have wrt this very basic test? Do you have any doubts about AC_CHECK_HEADERS documented behaviour, e.g. that it uses the compiler to test header usability, and it is affected by the arrangements made by AC_SYS_LARGEFILE? Even the memorable 8-year-old change of AC_CHECK_HEADERS behaviour described in [1] shouldn't affect this case because glibc's fts.h used to issue an "#error" in case of _FILE_OFFSET_BITS==64 thus breaking the preprocessor test, too. There are plenty of AC_CHECK_HEADERS invocations in configure.ac - do they also look doubtful to you? [1] https://www.gnu.org/savannah-checkouts/gnu/autoconf/manual/html_node/Present-But-Cannot-Be-Compiled.html -- ldv
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
