Re: [PATCH 2/6] Only define NEEDS_SOCKET if libsocket is usable

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Andreas Färber <andreas.faerber@web.de> writes:

> diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac
> index 7c2856e..75ec83a 100644
> --- a/configure.ac
> +++ b/configure.ac
> @@ -223,11 +223,11 @@ AC_LINK_IFELSE(ZLIBTEST_SRC,
>  LIBS="$old_LIBS"
>  AC_SUBST(NO_DEFLATE_BOUND)
>  #
> -# Define NEEDS_SOCKET if linking with libc is not enough (SunOS,
> +# Define NEEDS_SOCKET if linking with libc is required (SunOS,
>  # Patrick Mauritz).
> -AC_CHECK_LIB([c], [socket],
> -[NEEDS_SOCKET=],
> -[NEEDS_SOCKET=YesPlease])
> +AC_CHECK_LIB([socket], [socket],
> +[NEEDS_SOCKET=YesPlease],
> +[NEEDS_SOCKET=])
>  AC_SUBST(NEEDS_SOCKET)
>  test -n "$NEEDS_SOCKET" && LIBS="$LIBS -lsocket"

Doesn't this force linkage with -lsocket even if -lc is enough to use
socket(2) calls?

In other words, "checking libc is not enough" is only half correct.  The
right thing to do is "check libc and if it is sufficient be happy, but
otherwise do not automatically assume -lsocket is Ok."  Something like:

AC_CHECK_LIB([c], [socket],
[NEEDS_SOCKET=],
[AC_CHECK_LIB([socket], [socket],
        	[NEEDS_SOCKET=YesPlease],
                [NEEDS_SOCKET=])])

Other patches seemed Ok from my cursory look; I do not know the
people whose Ack's were on your patch submission, though...

Thanks.