Bugs item #831574, was opened at 2003-10-28 01:53
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by akuchling
You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=831574&group_id=5470

Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread,
including the initial issue submission, for this request,
not just the latest update.
Category: Build
Group: None
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Private: No
Submitted By: Anthony Baxter (anthonybaxter)
Assigned to: Anthony Baxter (anthonybaxter)
Summary: Solaris term.h needs curses.h

Initial Comment:
Solaris' term.h requires curses.h to be included first.
This 
causes the configure script to emit lines about a bug in 
autoconf. From the autoconf mailing lists, their standard 
response is to fix the configure script, see e.g. 
http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-autoconf/2003-05/msg00118.html

The following patch against 2.3 branch for configure
and configure.in makes things a bit happier. 

Note that Include/py_curses.h already includes curses.h 
before term.h, this just fixes the breakage of configure.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

>Comment By: A.M. Kuchling (akuchling)
Date: 2007-01-05 09:33

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=11375
Originator: NO

Is this bug still relevant to Python 2.5?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Martin v. Löwis (loewis)
Date: 2003-10-31 10:22

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=21627

I find it confusing that the test for curses.h already
refers to HAVE_CURSES_H; I think you should first check for
curses.h, and then use HAVE_CURSES_H in the test for term.h

I also agree that #ifdef is better than #if, even though it
should not matter in an ISO C compiler (which replaces
undefined symbols by 0 in an #if).

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Anthony Baxter (anthonybaxter)
Date: 2003-10-28 20:38

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=29957

Dunno if #ifdef is better or not - I just worked from the
example in the attached autoconf mailing list message.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Neal Norwitz (nnorwitz)
Date: 2003-10-28 08:08

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=33168

Should the #if be an #ifdef ?  Looks fine to me, but I don't
know much about autoconf. :-)  I think Martin is the expert.
 Martin do you have an opinion?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=831574&group_id=5470
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list 
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to