[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Possible regressions with trunk autoconf (vs 2.71)
From: |
Frederic Berat |
Subject: |
Re: Possible regressions with trunk autoconf (vs 2.71) |
Date: |
Wed, 16 Nov 2022 18:09:50 +0100 |
On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 5:05 PM Arsen Arsenović <arsen@aarsen.me> wrote:
>
>
> Frederic Berat <fberat@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > Some progress on this, it looks like, at least for libpng, there is at one
> > place where the "Port AC_LANG_CALL" seems to be the culprit.
> > Specifically, the "," in the C comment, is interpreted by M4 as argument
> > split which in turn leads to the syntax error.
>
> FWIW, I found this issue also while working on Gentoo, and I think the
> solution is to fix upstreams (and possibly add more commas so that this
> gets detected that much more often ;). I haven't looked at your exact
> examples (low on time right now), but instances I looked at were always
> underquoting in the (now broken) configure scripts, so I'm not inclined
> to assume this is an autotools regression yet, though I'm unsure whether
> the maintainers would classify it as such.
>
In principle, I'd say fair enough. Although, would it hurt to increase
quoting within the call itself ?
Honestly, I don't believe my workaround is a good one, I simply removed
the comma in another local version.
> Hopefully this issue is not too frequent for that to become quickly
> unsustainable, but I can't tell yet, I've only managed to send one patch
> on this topic so far.
So far, I've found around 70 packages affected by this in Fedora, I don't
know about Gentoo.
>
> Have a wonderful evening.
> --
> Arsen Arsenović
- Possible regressions with trunk autoconf (vs 2.71), Frederic Berat, 2022/11/16
- Re: Possible regressions with trunk autoconf (vs 2.71), Frederic Berat, 2022/11/16
- Re: Possible regressions with trunk autoconf (vs 2.71), Frederic Berat, 2022/11/16
- Re: Possible regressions with trunk autoconf (vs 2.71), Sam James, 2022/11/16
- Re: Possible regressions with trunk autoconf (vs 2.71), Arsen Arsenović, 2022/11/16
- Re: Possible regressions with trunk autoconf (vs 2.71),
Frederic Berat <=
- Re: Possible regressions with trunk autoconf (vs 2.71), Zack Weinberg, 2022/11/16
- Re: Possible regressions with trunk autoconf (vs 2.71), Frederic Berat, 2022/11/17
- Re: Possible regressions with trunk autoconf (vs 2.71), Zack Weinberg, 2022/11/17
- Re: Possible regressions with trunk autoconf (vs 2.71), Zack Weinberg, 2022/11/17
- Re: Possible regressions with trunk autoconf (vs 2.71), Frederic Berat, 2022/11/18
- Re: Possible regressions with trunk autoconf (vs 2.71), Sam James, 2022/11/18
- Re: Possible regressions with trunk autoconf (vs 2.71), Frederic Berat, 2022/11/19
- Re: Possible regressions with trunk autoconf (vs 2.71), Frederic Berat, 2022/11/24
- Re: Possible regressions with trunk autoconf (vs 2.71), Paul Eggert, 2022/11/17
- Re: Possible regressions with trunk autoconf (vs 2.71), Frederic Berat, 2022/11/18