Matthew Selsky via devel <devel@ntpsec.org>:
> On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 10:10:23PM -0700, Hal Murray via devel wrote:
> >
> > If you are missing a library or header, --enable-seccomp gives a warning
> > but
> > doesn't bail. Should that be changed?
> >
> > There are 3 seccomp symbols setup in config.h
> > #define ENABLE_SECCOMP 1 /* Enable seccomp */
> > #define HAVE_SECCOMP_H 1
> > #define HAVE_SECCOMP 1
> >
> > Is there any reason for more then one? It only builds on Linux. We need
> > both the header and library.
>
> HAVE_SECCOMP can likely be replaced with HAVE_SECCOMP_H in the code. And we
> can use ENABLE_SECCOMP or another ctx variable in waf to determine if the
> user wants us to check for seccomp at all (since we don't check for seccomp
> by default). And then we won't set the other variables if ENABLE_SECCOMP is
> false.
>
> If that makes sense, I can update waf to do this.
Seems right to me.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
Please consider contributing to my Patreon page at https://www.patreon.com/esr
so I can keep the invisible wheels of the Internet turning. Give generously -
the civilization you save might be your own.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@ntpsec.org
http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
