On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 3:23 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp <p...@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: > -------- > In message > <CABoVN9AGyrU2hYbYS2J=1yrppcjzjtvreapqflnjyrbqppd...@mail.gmail.com> > , Dridi Boukelmoune writes: > >>> Does anybody know of any reason not to apply this patch ? > >>Short answer is, no, you can't safely apply this patch. It depends on >>what you'd consider safe. > > The above patch was arrived at by spotting things autocrap examined > where we subsequently totally ignore the result of the examination. > > What's unsafe about that ?
There's a reason why *_LIBS variables are created in such a convoluted way, and it's first on my list of things to clean up so I'll pick this de-cargo-culting bit myself if you don't mind. If you don't save the libs, binaries linking to ${NET_LIBS} will also link to all the previous libs. Some commands like AC_PROG_CC will actually check that the compiler works by compiling a file. It possibly does other things that I don't remember of. If you are running out of autocrap patience I can move that up in my todo list and do the same kind of cleaning that I did for VMODs. That would be on the master branch so that maintainers can yell at me soon enough if I break someone else's machine. Dridi _______________________________________________ varnish-dev mailing list varnish-dev@varnish-cache.org https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-dev