Mladen Turk wrote: > On 19/10/09 16:37, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: >> Mladen Turk wrote: >>> >>> Anyhow, APR currently lacks the configure options for at >>> least specifying data model (using CFLAGS=-m32&& ./configure >>> is a little bit awkward and nowhere documented) >>> >>> Resolving that would certainly be one small step helping >>> packagers to solve some of the multi-arch issues. >> >> Bring this to the attention of the libtool and autoconf crew, it's >> precisely >> what they set out to fix, right? It sure doesn't seem worthwhile to hack >> around such things in our configure schema (and fwiw, that is a problem, >> above. CC="gcc -m32" is much more reliable w.r.t. libtool and autoconf >> detection. >> > > This kind of approach doesn't help a bit. > We are saying: OK, we know how to do it, but we are purists > and don't wish to pollute or code base with something we > think should be part of the toolkit we are using. > Go and complain to them directly instead weening here.
I didn't say that. I said fix it at the origin of the flaw. And in this sort of case, that could be a one-off patch here until it is accepted upstream. But don't fill apr code with hacks around broken autogunk. Can scons fix this? Inquiring minds do want to know :)
