--- Begin Message ---
On Jan 7, 2023, at 8:51 AM, Denis Ovsienko <de...@ovsienko.info> wrote:

> On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 17:13:20 -0800
> Guy Harris <ghar...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> On Jan 6, 2023, at 3:31 PM, Denis Ovsienko <de...@ovsienko.info>
>> wrote:
>>> It is the latter, and a custom Autoconf seems an unreasonable
>>> requirement for contributing.  
>> Reasonable, or unreasonable?
> Unreasonable, if it is more complicated than installing an Autoconf
> package using the package manager of the OS.

Which it is likely to be.

>> (By the way, have other Linux distributions applied the same changes
>> that Debian and its derivatives have?  If not, then users of those
>> distributions would be in the same situation as macOS and FreeBSD
>> users.)
> I do not remember to what extent these patches have propagated beyond
> Debian and Ubuntu.  Maybe somebody else has other distributions ready to
> check?

Fedora 36 and later appear to ship autoconf 2.71; the Debian sid package for 
autoconf 2.71 applies no patches to it, as, I presume, all of the Debian 
packages are applied (the off_t patch is already incorporated in 2.71).  
Debian's currently shipping 2.69, which requires their pile of patches.

Fedora shipped autoconf 2.69, without a patch like the Debian off_t patch but 
with a patch like the Debian "add runstatedir" patch.  I don't know what RHEL 

Looking at the Arch Linux repository, there doesn't appear to be a version of 
the off_t patch from when they shipped 2.69; they're currently shipping 2.71.  
The same applies to Gentoo.

But at least some of them have 2.71 patches, so there's no guarantee that all 
the releases that have 2.71 will generate exactly the same script.

--- End Message ---
tcpdump-workers mailing list

Reply via email to