Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for TR
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: William A. Rowe, Jr. Gesendet: Samstag, 29. November 2008 04:06 An: dev@httpd.apache.org Betreff: Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for TR 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 +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. Regards Rüdiger
Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for TR
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group ] Gesendet: Samstag, 29. November 2008 15:19 An: dev@httpd.apache.org Betreff: Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for TR -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: William A. Rowe, Jr. Gesendet: Samstag, 29. November 2008 04:06 An: dev@httpd.apache.org Betreff: Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for TR 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 +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? Regards Rüdiger
Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for TR
On Nov 28, 2008, at 6:28 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote: What are our preferred versions of autoconf and libtool for TR on the weekend? As far as I remember autoconf 2.61 had some problems. Actually, it was 2.62 which had problems. 2.61 is preferred.
Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for TR
On Nov 28, 2008, at 4:05 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote: On 11/28/2008 06:35 PM, Rainer Jung wrote: Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group schrieb: -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Paul Querna Gesendet: Freitag, 28. November 2008 17:55 An: dev@httpd.apache.org Betreff: Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for TR Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote: What are our preferred versions of autoconf and libtool for TR on the weekend? As far as I remember autoconf 2.61 had some problems. I'm not actually sure now days what specific version should be used, I haven't done RM in a while :-/ Just make sure you use a local copy, hand compiled version, not That was my plan. Jim what versions did you use last time? The generated files in the httpd distribution and also in the bundled apr/apr-util tell us it was autoconf 2.61 and libtool 1.5.26. There was a short discussion about autoconf versions and apr and httpd releasing before 2.2.10: http://marc.info/?t=12216820601r=1w=2 The technical reasons for nit chosing 2.62 are contained in the discussion starting with your mail http://marc.info/?l=apr-devm=121814441110258w=2 Thanks for the pointers. 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've not used 2.63... 2.61 at least has history behind it so I'd say stick with that.
Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for TR
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: dev@httpd.apache.org Betreff: Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for TR -Urspr�ngliche Nachricht- Von: William A. Rowe, Jr. Gesendet: Samstag, 29. November 2008 04:06 An: dev@httpd.apache.org Betreff: Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for TR 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/) +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]) http://www.gnu.org/software/m4/manual/html_node/Ifdef.html -- Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for TR
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: dev@httpd.apache.org Betreff: Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for TR -Urspr�ngliche Nachricht- Von: William A. Rowe, Jr. Gesendet: Samstag, 29. November 2008 04:06 An: dev@httpd.apache.org Betreff: Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for TR 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. +dnl So avoid confusing the user by turning this off. See also PR 45221. +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 TR if this gets backported or should I stay with 2.61 and we try 2.63 for the next TR? Regards Rüdiger
Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for TR
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: dev@httpd.apache.org Betreff: Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for TR -Urspr�ngliche Nachricht- Von: William A. Rowe, Jr. Gesendet: Samstag, 29. November 2008 04:06 An: dev@httpd.apache.org Betreff: Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for TR 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 TR if this gets backported or should I stay with 2.61 and we try 2.63 for the next TR? -- Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for TR
What are our preferred versions of autoconf and libtool for TR on the weekend? As far as I remember autoconf 2.61 had some problems. Regards Rüdiger
Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for TR
Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote: What are our preferred versions of autoconf and libtool for TR on the weekend? As far as I remember autoconf 2.61 had some problems. I'm not actually sure now days what specific version should be used, I haven't done RM in a while :-/ Just make sure you use a local copy, hand compiled version, not something an operating packaging system installs, and possibly patches to their liking. -Paul
Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for TR
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Paul Querna Gesendet: Freitag, 28. November 2008 17:55 An: dev@httpd.apache.org Betreff: Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for TR Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote: What are our preferred versions of autoconf and libtool for TR on the weekend? As far as I remember autoconf 2.61 had some problems. I'm not actually sure now days what specific version should be used, I haven't done RM in a while :-/ Just make sure you use a local copy, hand compiled version, not That was my plan. Jim what versions did you use last time? something an operating packaging system installs, and possibly patches to their liking. Regards Rüdiger
Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for TR
Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group schrieb: -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Paul Querna Gesendet: Freitag, 28. November 2008 17:55 An: dev@httpd.apache.org Betreff: Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for TR Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote: What are our preferred versions of autoconf and libtool for TR on the weekend? As far as I remember autoconf 2.61 had some problems. I'm not actually sure now days what specific version should be used, I haven't done RM in a while :-/ Just make sure you use a local copy, hand compiled version, not That was my plan. Jim what versions did you use last time? The generated files in the httpd distribution and also in the bundled apr/apr-util tell us it was autoconf 2.61 and libtool 1.5.26. There was a short discussion about autoconf versions and apr and httpd releasing before 2.2.10: http://marc.info/?t=12216820601r=1w=2 The technical reasons for nit chosing 2.62 are contained in the discussion starting with your mail http://marc.info/?l=apr-devm=121814441110258w=2 Regards, Rainer
Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for TR
On 11/28/2008 06:35 PM, Rainer Jung wrote: Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group schrieb: -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Paul Querna Gesendet: Freitag, 28. November 2008 17:55 An: dev@httpd.apache.org Betreff: Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for TR Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote: What are our preferred versions of autoconf and libtool for TR on the weekend? As far as I remember autoconf 2.61 had some problems. I'm not actually sure now days what specific version should be used, I haven't done RM in a while :-/ Just make sure you use a local copy, hand compiled version, not That was my plan. Jim what versions did you use last time? The generated files in the httpd distribution and also in the bundled apr/apr-util tell us it was autoconf 2.61 and libtool 1.5.26. There was a short discussion about autoconf versions and apr and httpd releasing before 2.2.10: http://marc.info/?t=12216820601r=1w=2 The technical reasons for nit chosing 2.62 are contained in the discussion starting with your mail http://marc.info/?l=apr-devm=121814441110258w=2 Thanks for the pointers. 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. Regards Rüdiger
Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for TR
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.
