[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Alternate header locations

From: Soren A
Subject: Re: Alternate header locations
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 09:09:21 +0000 (UTC)
User-agent: Xnews/L5

Guido Draheim <address@hidden> wrote around 15 Oct 2002

> Oh, btw, it might be better to not check for utime.h itself but for the
> functionality that you want to get from it - some platforms have weird
> locations for something a unixish system has a "standard" place for.

I know. But there's a reason i didn't do it that way, and i suppose that
other users will have similar situations. The reason is that I am not
going to go combing through the source code of this application that i
am not writing or maintaining, just to figure out what the guy who did
write it needs <utime.h> for. So I can be accused of laziness -- but in
fact there's nothing lazy about my doing this build-porting
(Autoconfiscating) that nobody asked me to do in the first place. So in
that particular instance there are multiple issues to be addressed and
they do not all have (cannot all be given) the same urgency. 

So, I think a few other users like me will gladly avail themselves of
this shortcut when they find themselves in similar situations.

You see, I prioritize projects -- it's called 'triage' in the field of
medicine. I save my best efforts for really important pieces of software
that I want my reputation to be riding on. For example, i have been
working (slowly) on trying to contribute porting fixes to GNU 'make'.
That's an example of a project where i will try to spur myself on to
almost any lengths of effort to "make sure its 100% right". 

> And your macro would remind you of that... so, personally, I add an
> AC_MSG_ *before* making the three ac-checks telling what the next
> section is about to do, and a more importantly an extra result AC_MSG_
> telling of the success if any, so it would be "AC_MSG_RESULT([...done
> - found utime in sys/utime.h])" 

OK, since you brought this up ... i wasn't going to mention this. But
since you did i have to report another gripe about Autotools -- this
time, Autoconf. 

I originally did write my code to do exactly what you are
saying. I removed that when i realized that it doesn't work. The version
of Autoconf that I am using outputs header checks all scrambled up like
an omelet. Out of the order which i specified in the "". I
assume that internally it is creating a [perl?] hash or something and
losing the order before outputting shell code into my 'configure'.
Anyway, that breaks such user notifications, doesn't it. Because using
"checking [foo..." then "answer [result]" must come on the same line.
There are like 6 header checks in-between the "Checking" msg and the
result msg. Autoconf doesn't document that behavior anywhere that i am
aware of. 

Now you know all.

  Best -- and thanks for your work on the macro repository! --
      Soren A

Just say NO to YAHAAPs!

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]