From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from picard.linux.it (picard.linux.it [213.254.12.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2EA1C54EBC for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2023 10:27:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 605B43CCA65 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2023 11:27:30 +0100 (CET) Received: from in-2.smtp.seeweb.it (in-2.smtp.seeweb.it [IPv6:2001:4b78:1:20::2]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-384)) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3D823CB53A for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2023 11:27:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.220.29]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by in-2.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14649600D0D for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2023 11:27:16 +0100 (CET) Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay2.suse.de [149.44.160.134]) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04CF43FB60; Thu, 12 Jan 2023 10:27:16 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1673519236; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=FiPWCE3y8xjKaK0H/DJkij3fizFaduWe7GG7Uuy1+us=; b=PtQw0m0gN7Q6oYrQIM4YnWkTHeboD/o5UUDoNprUSBSetXi8Ro6C26Zis3mAaWw+Np7M4B cQ77hiM1UAheR4U6kjVhjX9MXkeXdi82KvqTqii9fxxSfPvrLox89aXWXYBVbvuPAhvWSD 1dUS2NIdyoX3IHbLNGqEXM7xhbpHMUQ= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1673519236; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=FiPWCE3y8xjKaK0H/DJkij3fizFaduWe7GG7Uuy1+us=; b=imh+/mLtmA8w7Tfcc6EdnI9cPlgALmzuk3WinsVohai5YtCBGPDtr7yN6HheFPDZtFgu3S X5qjVyojFabhdnCg== Received: from g78 (unknown [10.163.28.198]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4EBB82C141; Thu, 12 Jan 2023 10:27:15 +0000 (UTC) References: <20230103124505.6611-1-pvorel@suse.cz> <20230103124505.6611-2-pvorel@suse.cz> <87lemaivkv.fsf@suse.de> <80dd5d72-33ca-5294-6e3a-d5d8f2652b91@owlfolio.org> User-agent: mu4e 1.8.13; emacs 28.2 From: Richard Palethorpe To: Petr Vorel Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2023 10:21:58 +0000 Organization: Linux Private Site In-reply-to: Message-ID: <87y1q8hwu5.fsf@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.102.4 at in-2.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH 2/2] configure.ac: Update AC_PROG_AR related comment X-BeenThere: ltp@lists.linux.it X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Test Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: rpalethorpe@suse.de Cc: Zack Weinberg , Mike Frysinger , autoconf@gnu.org, ltp@lists.linux.it Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-bounces+ltp=archiver.kernel.org@lists.linux.it Sender: "ltp" Hello, Petr Vorel 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