On 12.06.2010 21:07, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Friday 11 June 2010, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Modified: httpd/httpd/trunk/configure.in
URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/configure.in?rev=
951893&r1=951892&r2=951893&view=diff
================================================================
============== --- httpd/httpd/trunk/configure.in (original)
+++ httpd/httpd/trunk/configure.in Sun Jun 6 16:54:51 2010
@@ -170,6 +170,9 @@ dnl PCRE and for our config tests will b
AC_PROG_CC
AC_PROG_CPP
+dnl Try to get c99 support for variadic macros
+AC_PROG_CC_C99
+
This test is only present since autoconf>= 2.60.
Since 2.59 is still delivered with RedHat 4 / 5 this does not work
there, but the error is non fatal.
This means it is not a good idea to run buildconf on RH4/5, but a
configure created somewhere else with autoconf 2.60 should work fine.
So this mainly affects httpd developers.
We can either bump AC_PREREQ to 2.60, making it impossible to run
buildconf on RH4/5, or we can include the code for AC_PROG_CC_C99
(about 200 lines) from autoconf 2.60 in httpd's build system. The
current state seems like a bad idea, because of the potential to ship
a broken configure in release tarballs.
Preferences? Is anyone here developing on RHEL?
No problem for me.
2.59 is 6.5 years old, 2.60 4 years. Most recent is 2.65. The last time
there was discussion about this (Nov 2008)
http://marc.info/?t=122787193500002&r=1&w=2
the result seems to have been to recommend 2.61.
Regards,
Rainer
