> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: "Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group" ] > Gesendet: Samstag, 29. November 2008 15:19 > An: [email protected] > Betreff: Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for T&R > > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: William A. Rowe, Jr. > > Gesendet: Samstag, 29. November 2008 04:06 > > An: [email protected] > > Betreff: Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for T&R > > > > Ruediger Pluem wrote: > > > Any objections going with autoconf 2.63 and libtool 1.5.26? > > > > > > If autoconf 2.63 is seen as too risky I would go back to > > autoconf 2.61. > > > > I see no remaining issues for 2.63... solid choice. The endianess > > issues of 2.62 should all be addressed. > > > > autoconf 2.63 still emits the warnings for APR / APR-UTIL configure > options passed to it. The following patch should fix this: > > Index: configure.in > =================================================================== > --- configure.in (revision 721659) > +++ configure.in (working copy) > @@ -18,6 +18,10 @@ > sinclude(build/find_apu.m4) > sinclude(acinclude.m4) > > +dnl We don't want our confingure to emit any warnings for any > +dnl APR / APR-UTIL configure options > +AC_DISABLE_OPTION_CHECKING > + > dnl XXX we can't just use AC_PREFIX_DEFAULT because that > isn't subbed in > dnl by configure until it is too late. Is that how it > should be or not? > dnl Something seems broken here. > > Any objections? > > Otherwise I would commit to trunk and propose it for backport.
This does not work with older autoconf versions :-(. Anyone an idea for a code that only calls AC_DISABLE_OPTION_CHECKING if it is defined? Regards Rüdiger
