Magnus Fromreide <ma...@lysator.liu.se> writes: > On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 07:49:54PM +0200, Niels Baggesen wrote: >> The configure test for pcre requires that you explicitly configure >> --without-pcre if you are on a system without pcre support. Isn't this a >> bit overreacting? > > I have noticed that as well but not gotten around to fix it.
Sorry for the delay in response; I did just apply the patch from the patch DB. But we definitely should have auto-fell-back to no pcre if it fails to find a library. I'd even question what the best default is, but I figure if they have the library on the system I'd assume they wouldn't mind using it. So personally, I'm leaning toward including by default if available. >> Actually, are there any reason to go for pcre for this, adding a >> dependency that is not standard on BSD or Solaris (and probably AIX and >> HP-UX) systems? Couldn't we just as well use the Posix regex that is >> standard in libc? > > I agree and would also prefer to rewrite it to use Posix regexp. I actually disagree. More and more and more of the world is going pcre as the preferred regexp "format?", and in part because pcre generally includes all the posix regexp and extends it with helpful extra things that posix doesn't have. IE, pcre > posix. I'm not positive pcre is fully posix compliant, and that's a good question. But pcre is, IMHO, much better. -- Wes Hardaker Please mail all replies to net-snmp-coders@lists.sourceforge.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list Net-snmp-coders@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
