You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by "Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group" <ru...@vodafone.com> on 2008/11/28 12:28:53 UTC
Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for T&R
What are our preferred versions of autoconf and libtool for T&R on the weekend?
As far as I remember autoconf 2.61 had some problems.
Regards
Rüdiger
Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for T&R
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Nov 28, 2008, at 6:28 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
> What are our preferred versions of autoconf and libtool for T&R on
> the weekend?
> As far as I remember autoconf 2.61 had some problems.
>
Actually, it was 2.62 which had problems. 2.61 is preferred.
Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for T&R
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Nov 28, 2008, at 4:05 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
>
> On 11/28/2008 06:35 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>> Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group schrieb:
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>>> Von: Paul Querna
>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 28. November 2008 17:55
>>>> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
>>>> Betreff: Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for T&R
>>>>
>>>> Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
>>>>> What are our preferred versions of autoconf and libtool for
>>>> T&R on the weekend?
>>>>> As far as I remember autoconf 2.61 had some problems.
>>>> I'm not actually sure now days what specific version should
>>>> be used, I
>>>> haven't done RM in a while :-/
>>>>
>>>> Just make sure you use a local copy, hand compiled version, not
>>> That was my plan. Jim what versions did you use last time?
>>
>> The generated files in the httpd distribution and also in the bundled
>> apr/apr-util tell us it was autoconf 2.61 and libtool 1.5.26.
>>
>> There was a short discussion about autoconf versions and apr and
>> httpd
>> releasing before 2.2.10:
>>
>> http://marc.info/?t=122168206000001&r=1&w=2
>>
>> The technical reasons for nit chosing 2.62 are contained in the
>> discussion starting with your mail
>>
>> http://marc.info/?l=apr-dev&m=121814441110258&w=2
>
> Thanks for the pointers.
> Any objections going with autoconf 2.63 and libtool 1.5.26?
>
> If autoconf 2.63 is seen as too risky I would go back to autoconf
> 2.61.
>
I've not used 2.63... 2.61 at least has history behind it so I'd
say stick with that.
Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for T&R
Posted by Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <ar...@gmail.com>.
2008-11-29 22:47:45 Ruediger Pluem napisał(a):
>
> On 11/29/2008 08:17 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > 2008-11-29 15:49:36 Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group napisał(a):
> >>> -----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht-----
> >>> Von: "Pl�m, R�diger, VF-Group" ]
> >>> Gesendet: Samstag, 29. November 2008 15:19
> >>> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
> >>> Betreff: Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for T&R
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht-----
> >>>> Von: William A. Rowe, Jr.
> >>>> Gesendet: Samstag, 29. November 2008 04:06
> >>>> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
> >>>> Betreff: Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for T&R
> >>>>
> >>>> Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> >>>>> Any objections going with autoconf 2.63 and libtool 1.5.26?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If autoconf 2.63 is seen as too risky I would go back to
> >>>> autoconf 2.61.
> >>>>
> >>>> I see no remaining issues for 2.63... solid choice. The endianess
> >>>> issues of 2.62 should all be addressed.
> >>>>
> >>> autoconf 2.63 still emits the warnings for APR / APR-UTIL configure
> >>> options passed to it. The following patch should fix this:
> >>>
> >>> Index: configure.in
> >>> ===================================================================
> >>> --- configure.in (revision 721659)
> >>> +++ configure.in (working copy)
> >>> @@ -18,6 +18,10 @@
> >>> sinclude(build/find_apu.m4)
> >>> sinclude(acinclude.m4)
> >>>
> >>> +dnl We don't want our confingure to emit any warnings for any
> >>> +dnl APR / APR-UTIL configure options
> >
> > Why do you want to pass invalid options to configure?
> > (Also: s/confingure/configure/)
>
>
> I hope the comments to my patch below will explain this.
>
> >
> >>> +AC_DISABLE_OPTION_CHECKING
> >>> +
> >>> dnl XXX we can't just use AC_PREFIX_DEFAULT because that
> >>> isn't subbed in
> >>> dnl by configure until it is too late. Is that how it
> >>> should be or not?
> >>> dnl Something seems broken here.
> >>>
> >>> Any objections?
> >>>
> >>> Otherwise I would commit to trunk and propose it for backport.
> >> This does not work with older autoconf versions :-(.
> >>
> >> Anyone an idea for a code that only calls
> >>
> >> AC_DISABLE_OPTION_CHECKING
> >>
> >> if it is defined?
> >
> > ifdef([AC_DISABLE_OPTION_CHECKING], [AC_DISABLE_OPTION_CHECKING])
>
> That did the trick. Thanks. In my first test I missed the [] around the
> first parameter.
>
> So I propose the following patch for trunk which worked fine for me with
> autoconf 2.60 from SuSE 10.2 and vanilla autoconf 2.63:
>
> Index: configure.in
> ===================================================================
> --- configure.in (Revision 721717)
> +++ configure.in (Arbeitskopie)
> @@ -18,6 +18,15 @@
> sinclude(build/find_apu.m4)
> sinclude(acinclude.m4)
>
> +dnl Later versions of autoconf (>= 2.62) by default cause the produced
> +dnl configure script to emit at least warnings when it comes across unknown
> +dnl command line options. These versions also have the macro
> +dnl AC_DISABLE_OPTION_CHECKING defined which turns this off by default.
> +dnl We want to have this turned off here since our configure calls can
> +dnl contain options for APR / APR-UTIL configure that are unkown to us.
s/unkown/unknown/
> +dnl So avoid confusing the user by turning this off. See also PR 45221.
Alternatively you could add some options corresponding to APR/APR-Util options:
AC_ARG_WITH([ldap], [AS_HELP_STRING([--with-ldap], [Support LDAP in APR-Util (ignored when using external APR-Util)])])
> +ifdef([AC_DISABLE_OPTION_CHECKING], [AC_DISABLE_OPTION_CHECKING])
> +
> dnl XXX we can't just use AC_PREFIX_DEFAULT because that isn't subbed in
> dnl by configure until it is too late. Is that how it should be or not?
> dnl Something seems broken here.
>
>
> Any objections?
>
> As soon as this is in trunk I would propose it for backport and use
> autoconf 2.63 for T&R if this gets backported or should I stay with
> 2.61 and we try 2.63 for the next T&R?
--
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for T&R
Posted by Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org>.
On 11/29/2008 08:17 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> 2008-11-29 15:49:36 Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group napisał(a):
>>> -----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht-----
>>> Von: "Pl�m, R�diger, VF-Group" ]
>>> Gesendet: Samstag, 29. November 2008 15:19
>>> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
>>> Betreff: Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for T&R
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht-----
>>>> Von: William A. Rowe, Jr.
>>>> Gesendet: Samstag, 29. November 2008 04:06
>>>> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
>>>> Betreff: Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for T&R
>>>>
>>>> Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>>>>> Any objections going with autoconf 2.63 and libtool 1.5.26?
>>>>>
>>>>> If autoconf 2.63 is seen as too risky I would go back to
>>>> autoconf 2.61.
>>>>
>>>> I see no remaining issues for 2.63... solid choice. The endianess
>>>> issues of 2.62 should all be addressed.
>>>>
>>> autoconf 2.63 still emits the warnings for APR / APR-UTIL configure
>>> options passed to it. The following patch should fix this:
>>>
>>> Index: configure.in
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- configure.in (revision 721659)
>>> +++ configure.in (working copy)
>>> @@ -18,6 +18,10 @@
>>> sinclude(build/find_apu.m4)
>>> sinclude(acinclude.m4)
>>>
>>> +dnl We don't want our confingure to emit any warnings for any
>>> +dnl APR / APR-UTIL configure options
>
> Why do you want to pass invalid options to configure?
> (Also: s/confingure/configure/)
I hope the comments to my patch below will explain this.
>
>>> +AC_DISABLE_OPTION_CHECKING
>>> +
>>> dnl XXX we can't just use AC_PREFIX_DEFAULT because that
>>> isn't subbed in
>>> dnl by configure until it is too late. Is that how it
>>> should be or not?
>>> dnl Something seems broken here.
>>>
>>> Any objections?
>>>
>>> Otherwise I would commit to trunk and propose it for backport.
>> This does not work with older autoconf versions :-(.
>>
>> Anyone an idea for a code that only calls
>>
>> AC_DISABLE_OPTION_CHECKING
>>
>> if it is defined?
>
> ifdef([AC_DISABLE_OPTION_CHECKING], [AC_DISABLE_OPTION_CHECKING])
That did the trick. Thanks. In my first test I missed the [] around the
first parameter.
So I propose the following patch for trunk which worked fine for me with
autoconf 2.60 from SuSE 10.2 and vanilla autoconf 2.63:
Index: configure.in
===================================================================
--- configure.in (Revision 721717)
+++ configure.in (Arbeitskopie)
@@ -18,6 +18,15 @@
sinclude(build/find_apu.m4)
sinclude(acinclude.m4)
+dnl Later versions of autoconf (>= 2.62) by default cause the produced
+dnl configure script to emit at least warnings when it comes across unknown
+dnl command line options. These versions also have the macro
+dnl AC_DISABLE_OPTION_CHECKING defined which turns this off by default.
+dnl We want to have this turned off here since our configure calls can
+dnl contain options for APR / APR-UTIL configure that are unkown to us.
+dnl So avoid confusing the user by turning this off. See also PR 45221.
+ifdef([AC_DISABLE_OPTION_CHECKING], [AC_DISABLE_OPTION_CHECKING])
+
dnl XXX we can't just use AC_PREFIX_DEFAULT because that isn't subbed in
dnl by configure until it is too late. Is that how it should be or not?
dnl Something seems broken here.
Any objections?
As soon as this is in trunk I would propose it for backport and use
autoconf 2.63 for T&R if this gets backported or should I stay with
2.61 and we try 2.63 for the next T&R?
Regards
Rüdiger
Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for T&R
Posted by Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <ar...@gmail.com>.
2008-11-29 15:49:36 Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group napisał(a):
>
> > -----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: "Pl�m, R�diger, VF-Group" ]
> > Gesendet: Samstag, 29. November 2008 15:19
> > An: dev@httpd.apache.org
> > Betreff: Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for T&R
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht-----
> > > Von: William A. Rowe, Jr.
> > > Gesendet: Samstag, 29. November 2008 04:06
> > > An: dev@httpd.apache.org
> > > Betreff: Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for T&R
> > >
> > > Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> > > > Any objections going with autoconf 2.63 and libtool 1.5.26?
> > > >
> > > > If autoconf 2.63 is seen as too risky I would go back to
> > > autoconf 2.61.
> > >
> > > I see no remaining issues for 2.63... solid choice. The endianess
> > > issues of 2.62 should all be addressed.
> > >
> >
> > autoconf 2.63 still emits the warnings for APR / APR-UTIL configure
> > options passed to it. The following patch should fix this:
> >
> > Index: configure.in
> > ===================================================================
> > --- configure.in (revision 721659)
> > +++ configure.in (working copy)
> > @@ -18,6 +18,10 @@
> > sinclude(build/find_apu.m4)
> > sinclude(acinclude.m4)
> >
> > +dnl We don't want our confingure to emit any warnings for any
> > +dnl APR / APR-UTIL configure options
Why do you want to pass invalid options to configure?
(Also: s/confingure/configure/)
> > +AC_DISABLE_OPTION_CHECKING
> > +
> > dnl XXX we can't just use AC_PREFIX_DEFAULT because that
> > isn't subbed in
> > dnl by configure until it is too late. Is that how it
> > should be or not?
> > dnl Something seems broken here.
> >
> > Any objections?
> >
> > Otherwise I would commit to trunk and propose it for backport.
>
> This does not work with older autoconf versions :-(.
>
> Anyone an idea for a code that only calls
>
> AC_DISABLE_OPTION_CHECKING
>
> if it is defined?
ifdef([AC_DISABLE_OPTION_CHECKING], [AC_DISABLE_OPTION_CHECKING])
http://www.gnu.org/software/m4/manual/html_node/Ifdef.html
--
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for T&R
Posted by "Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group" <ru...@vodafone.com>.
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: "Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group" ]
> Gesendet: Samstag, 29. November 2008 15:19
> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for T&R
>
>
>
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: William A. Rowe, Jr.
> > Gesendet: Samstag, 29. November 2008 04:06
> > An: dev@httpd.apache.org
> > Betreff: Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for T&R
> >
> > Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> > > Any objections going with autoconf 2.63 and libtool 1.5.26?
> > >
> > > If autoconf 2.63 is seen as too risky I would go back to
> > autoconf 2.61.
> >
> > I see no remaining issues for 2.63... solid choice. The endianess
> > issues of 2.62 should all be addressed.
> >
>
> autoconf 2.63 still emits the warnings for APR / APR-UTIL configure
> options passed to it. The following patch should fix this:
>
> Index: configure.in
> ===================================================================
> --- configure.in (revision 721659)
> +++ configure.in (working copy)
> @@ -18,6 +18,10 @@
> sinclude(build/find_apu.m4)
> sinclude(acinclude.m4)
>
> +dnl We don't want our confingure to emit any warnings for any
> +dnl APR / APR-UTIL configure options
> +AC_DISABLE_OPTION_CHECKING
> +
> dnl XXX we can't just use AC_PREFIX_DEFAULT because that
> isn't subbed in
> dnl by configure until it is too late. Is that how it
> should be or not?
> dnl Something seems broken here.
>
> Any objections?
>
> Otherwise I would commit to trunk and propose it for backport.
This does not work with older autoconf versions :-(.
Anyone an idea for a code that only calls
AC_DISABLE_OPTION_CHECKING
if it is defined?
Regards
Rüdiger
Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for T&R
Posted by "Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group" <ru...@vodafone.com>.
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: William A. Rowe, Jr.
> Gesendet: Samstag, 29. November 2008 04:06
> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for T&R
>
> Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> > Any objections going with autoconf 2.63 and libtool 1.5.26?
> >
> > If autoconf 2.63 is seen as too risky I would go back to
> autoconf 2.61.
>
> I see no remaining issues for 2.63... solid choice. The endianess
> issues of 2.62 should all be addressed.
>
autoconf 2.63 still emits the warnings for APR / APR-UTIL configure
options passed to it. The following patch should fix this:
Index: configure.in
===================================================================
--- configure.in (revision 721659)
+++ configure.in (working copy)
@@ -18,6 +18,10 @@
sinclude(build/find_apu.m4)
sinclude(acinclude.m4)
+dnl We don't want our confingure to emit any warnings for any
+dnl APR / APR-UTIL configure options
+AC_DISABLE_OPTION_CHECKING
+
dnl XXX we can't just use AC_PREFIX_DEFAULT because that isn't subbed in
dnl by configure until it is too late. Is that how it should be or not?
dnl Something seems broken here.
Any objections?
Otherwise I would commit to trunk and propose it for backport.
Regards
Rüdiger
Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for T&R
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> Any objections going with autoconf 2.63 and libtool 1.5.26?
>
> If autoconf 2.63 is seen as too risky I would go back to autoconf 2.61.
I see no remaining issues for 2.63... solid choice. The endianess
issues of 2.62 should all be addressed.
Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for T&R
Posted by Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org>.
On 11/28/2008 06:35 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group schrieb:
>>
>>
>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>> Von: Paul Querna
>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 28. November 2008 17:55
>>> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
>>> Betreff: Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for T&R
>>>
>>> Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
>>>> What are our preferred versions of autoconf and libtool for
>>> T&R on the weekend?
>>>> As far as I remember autoconf 2.61 had some problems.
>>> I'm not actually sure now days what specific version should
>>> be used, I
>>> haven't done RM in a while :-/
>>>
>>> Just make sure you use a local copy, hand compiled version, not
>> That was my plan. Jim what versions did you use last time?
>
> The generated files in the httpd distribution and also in the bundled
> apr/apr-util tell us it was autoconf 2.61 and libtool 1.5.26.
>
> There was a short discussion about autoconf versions and apr and httpd
> releasing before 2.2.10:
>
> http://marc.info/?t=122168206000001&r=1&w=2
>
> The technical reasons for nit chosing 2.62 are contained in the
> discussion starting with your mail
>
> http://marc.info/?l=apr-dev&m=121814441110258&w=2
Thanks for the pointers.
Any objections going with autoconf 2.63 and libtool 1.5.26?
If autoconf 2.63 is seen as too risky I would go back to autoconf 2.61.
Regards
Rüdiger
Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for T&R
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group schrieb:
>
>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: Paul Querna
>> Gesendet: Freitag, 28. November 2008 17:55
>> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
>> Betreff: Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for T&R
>>
>> Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
>>> What are our preferred versions of autoconf and libtool for
>> T&R on the weekend?
>>> As far as I remember autoconf 2.61 had some problems.
>> I'm not actually sure now days what specific version should
>> be used, I
>> haven't done RM in a while :-/
>>
>> Just make sure you use a local copy, hand compiled version, not
>
> That was my plan. Jim what versions did you use last time?
The generated files in the httpd distribution and also in the bundled
apr/apr-util tell us it was autoconf 2.61 and libtool 1.5.26.
There was a short discussion about autoconf versions and apr and httpd
releasing before 2.2.10:
http://marc.info/?t=122168206000001&r=1&w=2
The technical reasons for nit chosing 2.62 are contained in the
discussion starting with your mail
http://marc.info/?l=apr-dev&m=121814441110258&w=2
Regards,
Rainer
Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for T&R
Posted by "Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group" <ru...@vodafone.com>.
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Paul Querna
> Gesendet: Freitag, 28. November 2008 17:55
> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for T&R
>
> Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
> > What are our preferred versions of autoconf and libtool for
> T&R on the weekend?
> > As far as I remember autoconf 2.61 had some problems.
>
> I'm not actually sure now days what specific version should
> be used, I
> haven't done RM in a while :-/
>
> Just make sure you use a local copy, hand compiled version, not
That was my plan. Jim what versions did you use last time?
> something an operating packaging system installs, and
> possibly patches
> to their liking.
Regards
Rüdiger
Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for T&R
Posted by Paul Querna <ch...@force-elite.com>.
Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
> What are our preferred versions of autoconf and libtool for T&R on the weekend?
> As far as I remember autoconf 2.61 had some problems.
I'm not actually sure now days what specific version should be used, I
haven't done RM in a while :-/
Just make sure you use a local copy, hand compiled version, not
something an operating packaging system installs, and possibly patches
to their liking.
-Paul