2008-11-29 22:47:45 Ruediger Pluem napisał(a): > > On 11/29/2008 08:17 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: > > 2008-11-29 15:49:36 Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group napisał(a): > >>> -----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht----- > >>> Von: "Pl�m, R�diger, VF-Group" ] > >>> Gesendet: Samstag, 29. November 2008 15:19 > >>> An: [email protected] > >>> Betreff: Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for T&R > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> -----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht----- > >>>> Von: William A. Rowe, Jr. > >>>> Gesendet: Samstag, 29. November 2008 04:06 > >>>> An: [email protected] > >>>> Betreff: Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for T&R > >>>> > >>>> Ruediger Pluem wrote: > >>>>> Any objections going with autoconf 2.63 and libtool 1.5.26? > >>>>> > >>>>> If autoconf 2.63 is seen as too risky I would go back to > >>>> autoconf 2.61. > >>>> > >>>> I see no remaining issues for 2.63... solid choice. The endianess > >>>> issues of 2.62 should all be addressed. > >>>> > >>> autoconf 2.63 still emits the warnings for APR / APR-UTIL configure > >>> options passed to it. The following patch should fix this: > >>> > >>> Index: configure.in > >>> =================================================================== > >>> --- configure.in (revision 721659) > >>> +++ configure.in (working copy) > >>> @@ -18,6 +18,10 @@ > >>> sinclude(build/find_apu.m4) > >>> sinclude(acinclude.m4) > >>> > >>> +dnl We don't want our confingure to emit any warnings for any > >>> +dnl APR / APR-UTIL configure options > > > > Why do you want to pass invalid options to configure? > > (Also: s/confingure/configure/) > > > I hope the comments to my patch below will explain this. > > > > >>> +AC_DISABLE_OPTION_CHECKING > >>> + > >>> dnl XXX we can't just use AC_PREFIX_DEFAULT because that > >>> isn't subbed in > >>> dnl by configure until it is too late. Is that how it > >>> should be or not? > >>> dnl Something seems broken here. > >>> > >>> Any objections? > >>> > >>> Otherwise I would commit to trunk and propose it for backport. > >> This does not work with older autoconf versions :-(. > >> > >> Anyone an idea for a code that only calls > >> > >> AC_DISABLE_OPTION_CHECKING > >> > >> if it is defined? > > > > ifdef([AC_DISABLE_OPTION_CHECKING], [AC_DISABLE_OPTION_CHECKING]) > > That did the trick. Thanks. In my first test I missed the [] around the > first parameter. > > So I propose the following patch for trunk which worked fine for me with > autoconf 2.60 from SuSE 10.2 and vanilla autoconf 2.63: > > Index: configure.in > =================================================================== > --- configure.in (Revision 721717) > +++ configure.in (Arbeitskopie) > @@ -18,6 +18,15 @@ > sinclude(build/find_apu.m4) > sinclude(acinclude.m4) > > +dnl Later versions of autoconf (>= 2.62) by default cause the produced > +dnl configure script to emit at least warnings when it comes across unknown > +dnl command line options. These versions also have the macro > +dnl AC_DISABLE_OPTION_CHECKING defined which turns this off by default. > +dnl We want to have this turned off here since our configure calls can > +dnl contain options for APR / APR-UTIL configure that are unkown to us.
s/unkown/unknown/ > +dnl So avoid confusing the user by turning this off. See also PR 45221. Alternatively you could add some options corresponding to APR/APR-Util options: AC_ARG_WITH([ldap], [AS_HELP_STRING([--with-ldap], [Support LDAP in APR-Util (ignored when using external APR-Util)])]) > +ifdef([AC_DISABLE_OPTION_CHECKING], [AC_DISABLE_OPTION_CHECKING]) > + > dnl XXX we can't just use AC_PREFIX_DEFAULT because that isn't subbed in > dnl by configure until it is too late. Is that how it should be or not? > dnl Something seems broken here. > > > Any objections? > > As soon as this is in trunk I would propose it for backport and use > autoconf 2.63 for T&R if this gets backported or should I stay with > 2.61 and we try 2.63 for the next T&R? -- Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
