On Mon, 2009-07-20 at 08:13 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> You could force it on using apr_cv_epoll=yes ./configure and such, but
> ugh and eww.
Ah, yes. There is always that too (note to self: edit Rawhide spec file
when APR 1.3.7 gets released).
> Debian does have a minimum kernel version that
]] Bojan Smojver
| However, there one could have an option to configure that forces new
| functions (i.e. use AC_CHECK_FUNCS instead of the new elaborate tests),
| because Fedora packages are targeted for a particular release. Not sure
| if that is something Debian package do or not.
You could f
On Sun, 2009-07-19 at 21:52 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> Not doing run-time detection means that everybody using Debian and
> derived distros (including Ubuntu) will get the castrated version
> where any and all features of new kernel versions are not used, so not
> doing runtime detection also
]] Bojan Smojver
(no need to Cc me, I read the list, as my Mail-Followup-To says.)
| Sorry, still not convinced. If a particular build system sucks, be that
| whichever distribution, then the build system should be fixed. I do not
| see why everyone should be penalised at run time for someone el
2009-07-19 13:36:17 Bojan Smojver napisał(a):
> On Sun, 2009-07-19 at 08:18 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> > Since I'm one of those Debian people who wanted the runtime detection
> > in the past: No, we can't do that.
> >
> > The apr (and all other packages) are built by build daemons on various
On Sun, 2009-07-19 at 08:18 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> Since I'm one of those Debian people who wanted the runtime detection
> in the past: No, we can't do that.
>
> The apr (and all other packages) are built by build daemons on various
> different architectures. We, as the packagers of apr
]] Bojan Smojver
| On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 09:27 +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
| > In the past I have argued we should never do runtime platform feature
| > detection, i.e., if accept4() works at build-time, we can presume it
| > works at run-time. I think I need to soften that position now; use of
|
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 07:05:46PM +1000, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 09:27 +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
> > In the past I have argued we should never do runtime platform feature
> > detection, i.e., if accept4() works at build-time, we can presume it
> > works at run-time. I think I
On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 09:27 +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
> In the past I have argued we should never do runtime platform feature
> detection, i.e., if accept4() works at build-time, we can presume it
> works at run-time. I think I need to soften that position now; use of
> a modern userspace on an ol
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:42:52AM +1000, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 01:39 +, bo...@apache.org wrote:
> > Use more elaborate checks for epoll_create1, dup3 and accept4.
>
> This requires review folks. There is code in the tests that can
> potentially hang the configure proces
On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 01:39 +, bo...@apache.org wrote:
> Use more elaborate checks for epoll_create1, dup3 and accept4.
This requires review folks. There is code in the tests that can
potentially hang the configure process. It does work on my Fedora 11 box
(which has the functions) and on RHEL
11 matches
Mail list logo
