However, from my experience it is not needed, people are most capable
of manage this without creating noise.
On the contrary, displaying meaningful error messages from configure is
*never* a "noise". As Fabian pointed out - quite rightly - if make fails
due to wrong/incorrect/missing
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Fabian Knittel
wrote:
> So it sounds as if we're actually somewhat in agreement! You don't
> want complex, automatic detection of non-standard situations and I
> agree wholeheartedly.
> But I _do_ want basic checking to achieve clear
Hi Alon,
>> AC_CHECK_LIB([selinux], [setcon], [SELINUX_LIBS="-lselinux"])
>>
>> versus
>>
>> AC_CHECK_HEADER([selinux/selinux.h], [
>> AC_CHECK_LIB([selinux], [setcon], [SELINUX_LIBS="-lselinux"],
>> [AC_MSG_RESULT([SELinux library not found.])]
>> )], [AC_MSG_ERROR([SELinux headers
Thanks for the clarification. ACK then.
--
Samuli Seppänen
Community Manager
OpenVPN Technologies, Inc
irc freenode net: mattock
> I wrote this in the introduction of the patch set.
>
> There are two approaches to detecting dependencies:
>
> 1. Detect all compile time dependences- you detect
I wrote this in the introduction of the patch set.
There are two approaches to detecting dependencies:
1. Detect all compile time dependences- you detect headers and
libraries, this is probably the safest way to go, but makes the code
very complex.
2. Detect library only - you assume that if
Looks like a cleaner implementation than the earlier one. I take it
AC_CHECK_HEADER is not anymore needed to detect selinux.h, but why exactly?
Besides that I give this one an ACK.
--
Samuli Seppänen
Community Manager
OpenVPN Technologies, Inc
irc freenode net: mattock
> Signed-off-by: Alon