[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: AC_HEADER_MAJOR vs. glibc 2.25(-to-be)

From: Zack Weinberg
Subject: Re: AC_HEADER_MAJOR vs. glibc 2.25(-to-be)
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 21:37:47 -0400

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Eric Blake <address@hidden> wrote:
> I may be able to get some time at my $dayjob to get an autoconf release
> out the door before the glibc release; how much time do I have left, to
> know what priority I need to give this?

Per, the current plan
is to release glibc 2.25 on 2017-02-01.  I feel responsible for making
sure whatever needs to happen happens in time, but unfortunately my
$dayjob is being especially all-consuming right now and it's not going
to let up until next June at the earliest, so I can't make any
promises. :-(

I can at least make sure that glibc 2.25's release notes mention the
need to use autoconf 2.70, _provided_ that the 2.70 release happens

> Meanwhile, even without an autoconf release scheduled, I am currently
> working on patching the existing autoconf macro and documentation to
> match the current situation.  It sounds to me like we want the following
> logic:
> If <sys/sysmacros.h> exists and defines major(), use that,
> else if <sys/mkdev.h> exists, use that,
> else if <sys/types.h> defines major(), use that,
> else not available

This seems sound to me, except that I would recommend we consistently
do check whether the selected header defines major().


reply via email to

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