From: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
To: Zack Weinberg <zack@owlfolio.org>
Cc: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>, autoconf@gnu.org, ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH 2/2] configure.ac: Update AC_PROG_AR related comment
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2023 21:12:39 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y73Gt6ePQzujriA6@pevik> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <80dd5d72-33ca-5294-6e3a-d5d8f2652b91@owlfolio.org>
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.
Kind regards,
Petr
> zw
--
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-01-10 20:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-01-03 12:45 [LTP] [PATCH 1/2] configure.ac: Require 2.64 Petr Vorel
2023-01-03 12:45 ` [LTP] [PATCH 2/2] configure.ac: Update AC_PROG_AR related comment Petr Vorel
2023-01-10 9:25 ` Richard Palethorpe
2023-01-10 16:14 ` Petr Vorel
2023-01-10 19:03 ` Zack Weinberg
2023-01-10 20:12 ` Petr Vorel [this message]
2023-01-12 10:21 ` Richard Palethorpe
2023-01-03 13:30 ` [LTP] [PATCH 1/2] configure.ac: Require 2.64 Petr Vorel
2023-01-04 3:07 ` Li Wang
2023-01-04 9:11 ` Petr Vorel
2023-01-04 9:37 ` Li Wang
2023-01-10 9:48 ` Richard Palethorpe
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Y73Gt6ePQzujriA6@pevik \
--to=pvorel@suse.cz \
--cc=autoconf@gnu.org \
--cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
--cc=vapier@gentoo.org \
--cc=zack@owlfolio.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox