Tim Rühsen <[email protected]> writes: >> but we can perhaps use this when flock is not available. > > Sounds like doing gnulib's job !? > > If flock() is not available, gnulib throws in it's flock() emulation. They > already check for flock and fcntl being available. Not sure, what problem > exists on Solaris 11 - there should be a working fcntl available. > > Is the gnulib documentation up-to-date ? > > But back to 0... the flock failure has been addressed by adding it to > boostrap.conf.
not sure why it is documented that way, perhaps it is only fixing the build issue but not really working? > What Christian and I experience is this (just got it on OpenCSW Solaris 11): > > /opt/csw/lib/gcc/i386-pc-solaris2.10/5.2.0/include- > fixed/sys/feature_tests.h:346:2: error: #error "Compiler or options invalid > for pre-UNIX 03 X/Open applications and pre-2001 POSIX applications" > #error "Compiler or options invalid for pre-UNIX 03 X/Open applications \ > ^ > In file included from :12:0, > from ../lib/sys/types.h:28, > from sysdep.h:85, > from wget.h:47, > from ftp-ls.c:32: > > > From feature_test.h: > /* > * It is invalid to compile an XPG3, XPG4, XPG4v2, or XPG5 application > * using c99. The same is true for POSIX.1-1990, POSIX.2-1992, POSIX.1b, > * and POSIX.1c applications. Likewise, it is invalid to compile an XPG6 > * or a POSIX.1-2001 application with anything other than a c99 or later > * compiler. Therefore, we force an error in both cases. > */ > #if defined(_STDC_C99) && (defined(__XOPEN_OR_POSIX) && !defined(_XPG6)) > #error "Compiler or options invalid for pre-UNIX 03 X/Open applications \ > and pre-2001 POSIX applications" > #elif !defined(_STDC_C99) && \ > (defined(__XOPEN_OR_POSIX) && defined(_XPG6)) > #error "Compiler or options invalid; UNIX 03 and POSIX.1-2001 applications \ > require the use of c99" > #endif > > > Seems pretty clear - gcc 5 has C99 as default standard (and Solaris has gcc > 5.2). > But we explicitely define _XOPEN_SOURCE 500 in src/sysdep.h, which says we > want 'X/Open 5, POSIX 1995' functions and nothing newer. > Solaris headers just make some checks to ensure proper definitions here and > they fail. > > When I simply remove the define, everything compiles ok. > The question is if we still want what the comment says: "/* Request the "Unix > 98 compilation environment". */". I think, we should allow Wget to be > compiled > on newer environments as well. > > WDYT ? yes, I agree. Please proceed and drop that line. Regards, Giuseppe
