Eric Blake wrote:
> Subject: [PATCH] build: fix build failure of bogus USE_XATTR
...
> diff --git a/m4/xattr.m4 b/m4/xattr.m4
...
> use_xattr=yes
> fi
> fi
> - AC_DEFINE_UNQUOTED([USE_XATTR], [$use_xattr],
> - [Define if you want extended attribute support.])
> if test $use_xattr = no; then
> AC_MSG_WARN([libattr development library was not found or not usable.])
> AC_MSG_WARN([AC_PACKAGE_NAME will be built without xattr support.])
> + else
> + AC_DEFINE([USE_XATTR], [1],
> + [Define if you want extended attribute support.])
Thanks!
That would fix it, but please retain the 0/1 semantics, in case
we ever want to use USE_XATTR in a C (as opposed to cpp) expression.
# Map yes,no to 1,0.
AC_DEFINE_UNQUOTED([USE_XATTR],
[`test $use_xattr = yes && echo 1 || echo 0`],
[Define if you want extended attribute support.])
I know this is not the norm for USE_* variables e.g., in gnulib,
but I have come to appreciate being able to use 0/1 cpp symbols
in C code (albeit not often), for readability.
