Re: autoconf 2.49c AC_CACHE_CHECK failure
"Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Alexandre On Jan 25, 2001, Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Should we (i) make sure not to use config.site in the test suite, or (ii) have this test grep out this message? Alexandre (ii) Since now the `loading config.site' is using AC_MSG_NOTICE which is subject to --quietism, this no longer can happen.
Re: autoconf 2.49c AC_CACHE_CHECK failure
| Hi, Salut Nicolas! | I just tried CVS autoconf on Tru64 unix v5.1 computer and noticed a | failure of AC_CACHE_CHECK if an autoconf site file exists in default | prefix location `/usr/local'. without this `config.site' defaults file | all tests are successful. | | njoly@medusa [~] cat /usr/local/share/config.site | ## Autoconf default configuration file Arg, never thought about this issue. Thanks! Actually I'm surprised this is the only feature. I'd like to have the opinion of other people on this issue: | | Testing suite log for GNU Autoconf 2.49d | | | Failed tests: | 23: base.at:205 AC_CACHE_CHECK | | Skipped tests: | 148: foreign.at:9Autoconf Libtool | | ## -- ## | ## Platform. ## | ## -- ## | | hostname = medusa.sis.pasteur.fr | uname -m = alpha | uname -r = V5.1 | uname -s = OSF1 | uname -v = 732 | | /usr/bin/uname -p = alpha | /bin/uname -X = unknown | | /bin/arch = unknown | /usr/bin/arch -k = unknown | /usr/convex/getsysinfo = unknown | hostinfo = unknown | /bin/machine = alpha | /usr/bin/oslevel = unknown | /bin/universe = unknown | | PATH = |/home/njoly/temp/autoconf/tests:/home/njoly/temp/autoconf:/home/njoly/bin:/local/bin:/local/sbin:/local/teTeX/bin/alphaev56-dec-osf5.0:/gensoft/bin:/sbin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/bin/X11 | | | Testing suite for GNU Autoconf 2.49d | | 23. ./base.at:205: testing AC_CACHE_CHECK... | ./base.at:212: autoconf --autoconf-dir .. -l $at_srcdir | ./base.at:213: ./configure -q | 0a1 | loading site script /usr/local/share/config.site | 23. ./base.at:205: FAILED near `base.at:213' This is the only failure because that's the only place were we actually check configure's stdout. Should we (i) make sure not to use config.site in the test suite, or (ii) have this test grep out this message? It sounds good to have the test suite protected from the user, but OTOH, it sounds good to have a means to check configures using the end user's config.site.
Re: autoconf 2.49c AC_CACHE_CHECK failure
Should we (i) make sure not to use config.site in the test suite, or (ii) have this test grep out this message? It sounds good to have the test suite protected from the user, but OTOH, it sounds good to have a means to check configures using the end user's config.site. I'd vote for (ii) - some systems may need config.site to make autoconf work properly, so disabling it would make many, if not all, tests fail on those systems.
Re: autoconf 2.49c AC_CACHE_CHECK failure
On Jan 25, 2001, Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Should we (i) make sure not to use config.site in the test suite, or
(ii) have this test grep out this message?
(ii)
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicampoliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist*Please* write to mailing lists, not to me
Re: autoconf 2.49c AC_CACHE_CHECK failure
Akim Demaille wrote: Should we (i) make sure not to use config.site in the test suite, or (ii) have this test grep out this message? I vote for not using an installed config.site, because the test suite should be self-contained and a config.site test within the testsuite should be based on the same data on every host. Independent of this, a test (outside of the testsuite) to check existing config.sites would also be useful. Ralf -- Ralf Corsepius Forschungsinstitut fuer Anwendungsorientierte Wissensverarbeitung (FAW) Helmholtzstr. 16, 89081 Ulm, Germany Tel: +49/731/501-8690 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] FAX: +49/731/501-999 http://www.faw.uni-ulm.de
