On Thu, 11 Sep 2003, Hrvoje Niksic wrote: > Mauro Tortonesi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> Isn't the second check a matter of running a small test program, as in > >> the check that Daniel provided (but more sophisticated)? > > > > sure. but what was the problem with stack detection? it's simply a couple > > of AC_EGREP_CPP macros after all... > > The problem I have with IN6_GUESS_STACK is that it seems to rely on > product information, in this case the known stack names. And those > things change. So when "usagi" gets renamed to "yojimbo" or when we > port Wget to a new IPv6-aware architecture, or when a new IPv6 > implementation gets added to an existing architecture, we need to > update our Autoconf macros. Updating the macros sucks, not only > because M4 blows chunks, but also because it means that older source > releases of Wget will no longer work. > > One of the design goals of Autoconf was to avoid the fallacy of older > tools that had complex product databases that had to be maintained by > hand. Instead, most Autoconf tests try to check for features. The > exception are cases when such checks are not possible or feasible. > This might or might not be the case here. So if it really takes too > long or it's just too hard to write a check, then we'll use a version > of IN6_GUESS_STACK.
well, i like your "simply find libinet6 and check if its getaddrinfo is better" approach. i'll try to implement it. > > i could start from: > > > > http://cvs.deepspace6.net/view/nc6/config/in6_guess_stack.m4?rev=HEAD&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup > > > > and made it much simpler (15-30 lines). what is your opinion about > > it? > > Simplifying that code, *and* adding a fallback that handles unknown > stacks in a reasonable fashion (for example by assuming minimal > functionality or strict standard compliance) sounds fine to me. I'd > still prefer a purely feature based check, but again, if you tell me > it's hard or impossible to write one, I'll believe you. not impossible. only a bit harder. > >> If the latter is the case, should be a "use ipvX only" runtime > >> option as well? > > > > i think that -4 and -6 command line options for wget are a MUST. the > > first would make wget use ipv4 only, while the second would make > > wget use ipv6 only. believe me, there are plenty of cases in which > > you want to use such options. > > I agree that those options are useful. And since Wget doesn't > currently use numeric-only options, those are available. i'll send you a patch for this too. -- Aequam memento rebus in arduis servare mentem... Mauro Tortonesi [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Deep Space 6 - IPv6 with Linux http://www.deepspace6.net Ferrara Linux User Group http://www.ferrara.linux.it
