Re: [LTP] [PATCH 2/2] configure.ac: Update AC_PROG_AR related comment

[Richard Palethorpe <rpalethorpe@suse.de>]

Hello,

Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> writes:

> Hi Zack,
>
> thank you for all your comments, highly appreciated!
>
>> On 2023-01-10 4:25 AM, Richard Palethorpe wrote:
>> > > >   AC_PROG_CC
>> > > > -# <= autoconf 2.61 doesn't have AC_PROG_AR, but 2.63 has it. Not sure about
>> > > > -# 2.62.
>> > > > +# autoconf >= v2.72a
>
>> > > This reads like we need the def for autoconf => v2.72a. How about
>> > You're right.  I probably thought this is defined since v2.72a,
>> > thus not needed.
>
>> Please don't use 'v2.72a' in any commentary or tests.  That version doesn't
>> exist yet and may never exist; if it does, it will be a short-lived beta
>> test release of v2.72 that we don't want people to depend on.
>> (Autoconf uses a very old version numbering convention in which beta tests
>> for release X.Y are labeled X.Ya, X.Yb, X.Yc, etc.)
>
>> Officially, AC_PROG_AR will be available as of version 2.72, and that's what
>> you should reference in commentary.
>
> I understood v2.72a similarly as kernel -rc1 gained new version.
> But sure, makes perfect sense to use final version in the comment.
>
>> > Also it looks like that redefinition is not a problem thus
>> > not wrapping with m4_ifndef([AC_PROG_AR].
>
>> Autoconf will let you do that, but it's bad practice.  What if version 2.73
>> makes AC_PROG_AR expand to something other than
>> AC_CHECK_TOOL(AR, ar, :) ? You'd be overwriting whatever bug fix that was.
>
>> I suggest something like
>
>> # AC_PROG_AR was added in autoconf 2.72.
>> m4_ifndef([AC_PROG_AR],
>>   [AC_DEFUN([AC_PROG_AR], [AC_CHECK_TOOL(AR, ar, :)])])
>
>> > NOTE: missing 'ar' don't fail configure (isn't the check useless
>> > then?)
>
>> We don't know what you need `ar` for; it might not be appropriate to fail
>> the build if it's missing.  You can do
>
>> AC_PROG_AR
>> AS_IF([test x$AR = x:],
>>   [AC_MSG_FAILURE([no usable "ar" program detected])])
>
>> if you want to fail the build.
>
> @Richie @Li, we obviously need ar for libs/, I'd be for this.
> I also have look how other check works.

Sure, also I'll set this to "changes requested" in Patchwork.

>
> Kind regards,
> Petr
>
>> zw


-- 
Thank you,
Richard.

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp