On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 12:02:15PM -0700, Hal Murray wrote: > > devel@ntpsec.org said: > > HAVE_SECCOMP can likely be replaced with HAVE_SECCOMP_H in the code. > > That seems backwards. HAVE_SECCOMP_H says (to me) that you have the header. > You may not have the library and/or maybe seccomp wasn't configured. > > seccomp is only referenced by ntpd/ntp_sandbox.c I was thinking of using > only ENABLE_SECCOMP with a big comment saying that waf had checked to make > sure whatever is needed is available. > > But which symbol we use is not a big deal. > > Humm... How would that test (and similar ones) work in a cross compile? Is > anybody actually cross compiling? If so, what platform? Maybe we should > setup a test case for a Raspberry Pi. > > -------- > > There is still the problem of should waf crash if you asked for seccomp and > it won't work. Currently, it just prints a warning that is easy to miss in > all the other printout.
Just to close out this thread for those that don't watch the GitLab site.. I consolidated on a single symbol in config.h and I made waf have a fatal error if you requested seccomp, but either headers or libraries aren't found. See https://gitlab.com/NTPsec/ntpsec/commit/d22805a504e2a4066a3b22f5a100319c1f72601d Thanks, -Matt _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
