Re: [PATCH] configure: $x_includes used even if not set
Tony Mechelynck wrote: On 11/04/09 04:16, Matt Wozniski wrote: On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 6:43 PM, Tony Mechelynck wrote: Couldn't you run test just once? Maybe something more or less like if test -n $x_includes -a $x_includes != NONE Just my sense of aesthetics, I'm not on a Mac. Usually, yes - but lore tells of shells where test isn't POSIX compatible, where -a and -o don't behave predictably but and || do... *shrug* ~Matt Hm. What about the shells available on the Mac, and in particular on Mac OS X ? This test is not limited to Mac OS X. I am pretty sure you could reproduce $x_includes == NONE on another platform as well. Rainer --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message from the vim_dev maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[PATCH] configure: $x_includes used even if not set
Hi, I am the maintainer for vim in MacPorts. The configure script triggered a linking error for _Xsetlocale for us on Mac OS X. Here is a patch which adds a conditional to make sure this test is not run if the x_includes variable is actually not set. Regards, Rainer --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message from the vim_dev maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- --- configure.in.old2009-04-11 00:05:39.0 +0200 +++ configure.in2009-04-11 00:06:09.0 +0200 @@ -2952,7 +2952,7 @@ if test $enable_multibyte = yes; then cflags_save=$CFLAGS ldflags_save=$LDFLAGS - if test -n $x_includes ; then + if test -n $x_includes test $x_includes != NONE; then CFLAGS=$CFLAGS -I$x_includes LDFLAGS=$X_LIBS $LDFLAGS -lX11 AC_MSG_CHECKING(whether X_LOCALE needed)
Re: [PATCH] configure: $x_includes used even if not set
On 11/04/09 00:14, Rainer Müller wrote: Hi, I am the maintainer for vim in MacPorts. The configure script triggered a linking error for _Xsetlocale for us on Mac OS X. Here is a patch which adds a conditional to make sure this test is not run if the x_includes variable is actually not set. Regards, Rainer Couldn't you run test just once? Maybe something more or less like if test -n $x_includes -a $x_includes != NONE Just my sense of aesthetics, I'm not on a Mac. Best regards, Tony. -- Those who express random thoughts to legislative committees are often surprised and appalled to find themselves the instigators of law. -- Mark B. Cohen --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message from the vim_dev maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: [PATCH] configure: $x_includes used even if not set
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 6:43 PM, Tony Mechelynck wrote: Couldn't you run test just once? Maybe something more or less like if test -n $x_includes -a $x_includes != NONE Just my sense of aesthetics, I'm not on a Mac. Usually, yes - but lore tells of shells where test isn't POSIX compatible, where -a and -o don't behave predictably but and || do... *shrug* ~Matt --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message from the vim_dev maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: [PATCH] configure: $x_includes used even if not set
On 11/04/09 04:16, Matt Wozniski wrote: On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 6:43 PM, Tony Mechelynck wrote: Couldn't you run test just once? Maybe something more or less like if test -n $x_includes -a $x_includes != NONE Just my sense of aesthetics, I'm not on a Mac. Usually, yes - but lore tells of shells where test isn't POSIX compatible, where -a and -o don't behave predictably but and || do... *shrug* ~Matt Hm. What about the shells available on the Mac, and in particular on Mac OS X ? Best regards, Tony. -- Then here's to the City of Boston, The town of the cries and the groans. Where the Cabots can't see the Kabotschniks, And the Lowells won't speak to the Cohns. -- Franklin Pierce Adams --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message from the vim_dev maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: [PATCH] configure: $x_includes used even if not set
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:53 PM, Tony Mechelynck wrote: On 11/04/09 04:16, Matt Wozniski wrote: On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 6:43 PM, Tony Mechelynck wrote: Couldn't you run test just once? Maybe something more or less like if test -n $x_includes -a $x_includes != NONE Just my sense of aesthetics, I'm not on a Mac. Usually, yes - but lore tells of shells where test isn't POSIX compatible, where -a and -o don't behave predictably but and || do... Hm. What about the shells available on the Mac, and in particular on Mac OS X ? Changing the configure script would change things wherever ./configure is used. And, besides, it looks prettier is hardly a reason to accept behavior that might be broken somewhere. If we can agree that test ... -a ... and test ... test ... are functionally equivalent, but that the latter might work somewhere the former doesn't, it's pretty clear that we should use the latter. ~Matt --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message from the vim_dev maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: [PATCH] configure: $x_includes used even if not set
On 11/04/09 05:02, Matt Wozniski wrote: On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:53 PM, Tony Mechelynck wrote: On 11/04/09 04:16, Matt Wozniski wrote: On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 6:43 PM, Tony Mechelynck wrote: Couldn't you run test just once? Maybe something more or less like if test -n $x_includes -a $x_includes != NONE Just my sense of aesthetics, I'm not on a Mac. Usually, yes - but lore tells of shells where test isn't POSIX compatible, where -a and -o don't behave predictably but and || do... Hm. What about the shells available on the Mac, and in particular on Mac OS X ? Changing the configure script would change things wherever ./configure is used. And, besides, it looks prettier is hardly a reason to accept behavior that might be broken somewhere. If we can agree that test ... -a ... and test ... test ... are functionally equivalent, but that the latter might work somewhere the former doesn't, it's pretty clear that we should use the latter. ~Matt OK. The former may run marginally faster due to the fact that the whole expression is computed in the same place (even on shells where test isn't a builtin), but that's hardly a reason to risk an easily avoidable malfunction. Best regards, Tony. -- The Preacher, the Politician, the Teacher, Were each of them once a kiddie. A child, indeed, is a wonderful creature. Do I want one? God Forbiddie! -- Ogden Nash --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message from the vim_dev maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
