For reference, this was first observed in https://bugs.gentoo.org/775215.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
> On 24 Mar 2022, at 14:42, Bob Friesenhahn
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022, Evgeny Grin wrote:
>>
>> It's not uncommon to use CFLAGS for macros or for '-I' flags.
>> I think it's easy to imagine other conflicting situation where the order of
>> used flags is significant.
>
> It may not be
> On 31 Jul 2022, at 00:16, alexandre schenberg
> wrote:
>
> Hi. I am currently running the configure script of gtk. It stops with the
> message: "configure: error: *** XInput2 extension not found. Check
> 'config.log' for more details.". Then I checked config.log. And there it is
> says: "
> On 10 Nov 2022, at 21:10, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2022-11-10 at 12:16 -0500, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>>
>> Nobody has a whole lot of time to work on Autoconf at present, but I
>> would like to ask, anyway, what Autoconf could potentially do to make
>> this transition easier.
>
> Wh
Hi all,
In Gentoo, we've been planning out what we should do for time64 on glibc [0]
and concluded that we need some support in glibc for a newer option. I'll
outline
why below.
Proposal: glibc gains two new build-time configure options:
* --enable-hard-time64
* --enable-hard-lfs
These would ha
> On 11 Nov 2022, at 03:33, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2022, at 10:08 PM, Sam James wrote:
>>> On 10 Nov 2022, at 21:10, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>>> While everyone else is discussing big ideas, it would be helpful for me
>>> personally if a
> On 10 Nov 2022, at 17:16, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>
> I’m the closest thing Autoconf has to a lead maintainer at present.
>
> It’s come to my attention (via https://lwn.net/Articles/913505/ and
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/PortingToModernC) that GCC and
> Clang both plan to disable
> On 11 Nov 2022, at 09:16, Paul Eggert wrote:
>
> On 2022-11-11 00:38, Sam James wrote:
>> All that to say, I don't propose making these options unconditional,
>> because I think the boat has sailed as of glibc-2.34 [4], and I think
>> it's fair that aut
> On 11 Nov 2022, at 09:19, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * Sam James:
>
>> In Gentoo, we've been planning out what we should do for time64 on
>> glibc [0] and concluded that we need some support in glibc for a newer
>> option. I'll outline why below.
&g
> On 11 Nov 2022, at 03:33, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2022, at 10:08 PM, Sam James wrote:
>>> On 10 Nov 2022, at 21:10, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>>> While everyone else is discussing big ideas, it would be helpful for me
>>> personally if a
> On 12 Nov 2022, at 03:40, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>
> Florian Weimer writes:
>> based on a limited attempt to get this fixed about three years
>> ago, I expect that many of the problematic packages have not had their
>> configure scripts regenerated using autoconf for a decade or more. This
>>
> On 12 Nov 2022, at 02:20, Zack Weinberg via Libc-alpha
> wrote:
>
> Sam James writes:
>>> On 11 Nov 2022, at 09:19, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> We need to support legacy binaries on i386. Few libraries are
>>> explicitly dual-ABI. Whether it's
> On 12 Nov 2022, at 00:53, Paul Eggert wrote:
>
> On 2022-11-11 15:25, Sam James wrote:
>> That's not a judgement on whether the changes will ultimately remain in
>> autoconf, I'm just
>> hesitant to allow a discussion I've kicked off to derail somet
rongly suspect that only a wholesale rebuild for the new
> ABI (i.e a new Debian architecture) is practical, but have not yet
> entirely ruled out attempting a migration within the existing armhf
> arch.
>
> [snip]
>
>> * Sam James
>>
>>> In Gentoo, we'
> On 12 Nov 2022, at 04:56, Wookey wrote:
>
> On 2022-11-12 04:28 +0000, Sam James wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 12 Nov 2022, at 04:20, Wookey wrote:
>>>
>>> Distros need to co-ordinate on this. If there are going to be new
>>> triplets for
> On 13 Nov 2022, at 00:43, Paul Eggert wrote:
>
> On 2022-11-11 07:11, Aaron Ballman wrote:
>> We believe the runtime behavior is sufficiently dangerous to
>> warrant a conservative view that any call to a function will be a call
>> that gets executed at runtime, hence a definitive signature m
> On 12 Nov 2022, at 21:31, Paul Eggert wrote:
>
> On 2022-11-12 12:23, Wookey wrote:
>> we can't just have everyone who enabled LFS sometime in the
>> last 20 years suddenly being forced into the time_t change (can we?)
>
> We've done it in the past.
>
> AC_SYS_LARGEFILE originally was in Gn
> On 15 Nov 2022, at 13:30, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2022, at 12:03 AM, Sam James wrote:
>>> On 13 Nov 2022, at 00:43, Paul Eggert wrote:
>>>
>>> Although there will be problems with people who run "./configure
>>> CFL
> On 16 Nov 2022, at 09:06, Frederic Berat wrote:
>
> Hello again,
>
> 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 wh
> On 16 Nov 2022, at 07:41, Frederic Berat wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> In the past few months, I worked on a tool that massively rebuild packages
> that depend on a specific other package, in order to help spot problems as
> early as possible (on Fedora and RHEL so far).
>
I'm interested in this w
> On 16 Nov 2022, at 15:27, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 4:02 PM Michael Matz via Gcc wrote:
>>
>> Hey,
>>
>> On Wed, 16 Nov 2022, Alexander Monakov wrote:
>>
The idea is so obvious that I'm probably missing something, why autoconf
can't use that idiom instead
> On 18 Nov 2022, at 07:11, Frederic Berat wrote:
>
> Thanks, I'll update the bug I opened for them.
Could you share the links? Thanks.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
> On 26 Dec 2022, at 18:11, Paul Eggert wrote:
>
> Thanks for reporting that. I installed that patch.
>
Thanks, this should allow me to begin re-testing w/ autoconf from git.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
> On 4 Feb 2023, at 13:42, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> The x11vnc configure.ac script contains this:
>
> | if test "x$with_v4l" != "xno"; then
> | AC_CHECK_HEADER(linux/videodev.h,
> | [AC_DEFINE(HAVE_LINUX_VIDEODEV_H)],,)
> | fi
>
> This is the point where all the default header check are inse
> On 6 Feb 2023, at 06:00, Paul Eggert wrote:
>
> On 2023-02-04 09:26, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> The principle that one should always use an AS_* construct if one exists
>> rather than regular shell constructs could probably be documented more
>> aggressively.
>
> I gave that a shot by installing
"Zack Weinberg" writes:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2023, at 11:38 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> We're overdue for a new release, so here's a snapshot in preparation
>> for that, which I want to call 2.73 (skipping 2.72). There has never
>> been an autoconf-2.72 release, yet `git describe` now prints 2.72c
Paul Eggert writes:
> On 2023-03-28 13:57, Richard Purdie wrote:
>> From a regression/failure point of view, the worrying issue is the
>> gpgme/mpg123 issue on x32 which also appears for musl 32 and 64 bit x86
>> targets.
>> https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/typhoon/#/builders/64/builds/6881
Florian Weimer writes:
> * Zack Weinberg:
>
>> Paul Eggert made some changes back in May that attempt to address this:
>> commits 028526149ee804617a302ccef22cc6adbda681b0 and
>> 33c26d2700f927432c756ccf7a4fc89403d35b95. Do you have a minimized
>> test case for the problem (both the original pr
"Zack Weinberg" writes:
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2024, at 1:49 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On 13 Jan 2024 15:58, Karl Berry wrote:
>>> Another alternative: when this came up 30-odd years ago, rms changed the
>>> GNU maintainers doc to suggest x.y.90, .91, etc. for pretests. Doing
>>> that would at le
Paul Eggert writes:
> On 2024-04-26 08:10, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>
>> I think what we should do here is fold AC_C_VARARRAYS into AC_PROG_CC.
>> Take the test for VLAs completely out of _AC_C_C99_TEST_MAIN, but
>> unconditionally *run* a test for VLAs as part of AC_PROG_CC. If that
>> test fails,
Antonin Décimo writes:
> Le mar. 30 avr. 2024 à 15:01, Sam James a écrit :
>>
>> Paul Eggert writes:
>>
>> > On 2024-04-26 08:10, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>> >
>> >> I think what we should do here is fold AC_C_VARARRAYS into AC_PROG
31 matches
Mail list logo
