Hello, Petr Vorel <pvorel@xxxxxxx> writes: > Hi Zack, > > thank you for all your comments, highly appreciated! > >> On 2023-01-10 4:25 AM, Richard Palethorpe wrote: >> > > > AC_PROG_CC >> > > > -# <= autoconf 2.61 doesn't have AC_PROG_AR, but 2.63 has it. Not sure about >> > > > -# 2.62. >> > > > +# autoconf >= v2.72a > >> > > This reads like we need the def for autoconf => v2.72a. How about >> > You're right. I probably thought this is defined since v2.72a, >> > thus not needed. > >> Please don't use 'v2.72a' in any commentary or tests. That version doesn't >> exist yet and may never exist; if it does, it will be a short-lived beta >> test release of v2.72 that we don't want people to depend on. >> (Autoconf uses a very old version numbering convention in which beta tests >> for release X.Y are labeled X.Ya, X.Yb, X.Yc, etc.) > >> Officially, AC_PROG_AR will be available as of version 2.72, and that's what >> you should reference in commentary. > > I understood v2.72a similarly as kernel -rc1 gained new version. > But sure, makes perfect sense to use final version in the comment. > >> > Also it looks like that redefinition is not a problem thus >> > not wrapping with m4_ifndef([AC_PROG_AR]. > >> Autoconf will let you do that, but it's bad practice. What if version 2.73 >> makes AC_PROG_AR expand to something other than >> AC_CHECK_TOOL(AR, ar, :) ? You'd be overwriting whatever bug fix that was. > >> I suggest something like > >> # AC_PROG_AR was added in autoconf 2.72. >> m4_ifndef([AC_PROG_AR], >> [AC_DEFUN([AC_PROG_AR], [AC_CHECK_TOOL(AR, ar, :)])]) > >> > NOTE: missing 'ar' don't fail configure (isn't the check useless >> > then?) > >> We don't know what you need `ar` for; it might not be appropriate to fail >> the build if it's missing. You can do > >> AC_PROG_AR >> AS_IF([test x$AR = x:], >> [AC_MSG_FAILURE([no usable "ar" program detected])]) > >> if you want to fail the build. > > @Richie @Li, we obviously need ar for libs/, I'd be for this. > I also have look how other check works. Sure, also I'll set this to "changes requested" in Patchwork. > > Kind regards, > Petr > >> zw -- Thank you, Richard.
