- Dillo-dev - lists.mailman3.com

[patch]: more configure.in cleanups

by onepoint＠starurchin.org

Some more cleaning up of configure.in: Move AC_CANONICAL_SYSTEM We should call AC_CANONICAL_SYSTEM immediately after AC_INIT otherwise autoconf throws a warning "AC_ARG_PROGRAM was called before AC_CANONICAL_TARGET". (This was introduced by my previous configure.in patch, oops!) Remove AM_PROG_CC_STDC AM_PROG_CC_STDC has been folded into AC_PROG_CC . Amusing facts: * This removes 670 lines (~ 9%) from configure! * AM_PROG_CC_STDC is so obsolete it's not even mentioned in the current docs! I Googled an old version[1] to confirm that it's been obsolete since automake 1.8 (released 2003-12-10). After removing this macro, AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE is the only AM_* macro that Dillo uses. Remove AC_HEADER_STDC This isn't actually marked as obsolete but the manual[2] states: This macro is obsolescent, as current systems have conforming header files. New programs need not use this macro. The Dillo source does not use the variable STDC_HEADERS that AC_HEADER_STDC defines. Please comment. Regards, Jeremy Henty [1] http://www.delorie.com/gnu/docs/automake/automake_24.html [2] http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/html_node/Particular-Headers.ht…

Jan. 1, 2011

[patch]: modernize configure.in's initialization and configuration

by onepoint＠starurchin.org

On Sat, Jan 01, 2011 at 10:28:55AM +0000, corvid wrote: > Now that I run it instead of just reading the documentation > (reminds me of that one Knuth line), I get some > > configure.in:9: warning: AC_ARG_PROGRAM was called before AC_CANONICAL_TARGET > ./../lib/autoconf/general.m4:1843: AC_CANONICAL_SYSTEM is expanded from... > configure.in:9: the top level Yes, my fault, AC_CANONICAL_SYSTEM needs to be called immediately after AC_INIT . Just about to submit a fix! Regards, Jeremy Henty

Jan. 1, 2011

[patch]: modernize configure.in's initialization and configuration

by corvid＠lavabit.com

BTW, I see that configure.ac is preferred to configure.in nowadays. http://www.mail-archive.com/autoconf@gnu.org/msg19641.html says: "...the naming change to configure.ac was YEARS ago, for autoconf 2.50. And now that autoconf 2.59 is about as old as you can reliably go (for example, RHEL 5 still uses autoconf 2.59), it is completely safe to use the (not so) new naming convention." It seems that 2.50 came out in 2001.

Jan. 1, 2011

[patch]: modernize configure.in's initialization and configuration

by corvid＠lavabit.com

Now that I run it instead of just reading the documentation (reminds me of that one Knuth line), I get some configure.in:9: warning: AC_ARG_PROGRAM was called before AC_CANONICAL_TARGET ./../lib/autoconf/general.m4:1843: AC_CANONICAL_SYSTEM is expanded from... configure.in:9: the top level

Jan. 1, 2011

[patch]: modernize configure.in's initialization and configuration

by onepoint＠starurchin.org

On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 10:58:25PM +0000, corvid wrote: > Jorge wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 01:22:38PM +0000, Jeremy Henty wrote: > > > > > > Dillo's configure.in uses some obsolete autoconf/automake macros and > > > calls some others in obsolete ways. This patch brings it (mostly) up > > > to date. > > > > > > Any problems with this or shall I push it? > > > > From the patch and docs, it looks OK to commit. > > +1 > > Ditto. Done! Regards, Jeremy Henty

Jan. 1, 2011

[patch]: modernize configure.in's initialization and configuration

by corvid＠lavabit.com

Jorge wrote: > On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 01:22:38PM +0000, Jeremy Henty wrote: > > > > Dillo's configure.in uses some obsolete autoconf/automake macros and > > calls some others in obsolete ways. This patch brings it (mostly) up > > to date. > > > > Any problems with this or shall I push it? > > From the patch and docs, it looks OK to commit. > +1 Ditto.

Dec. 31, 2010

[jcid@dillo.org: Re: [Dillo-dev] [patch]: modernize configure.in's initialization and configuration]

by jcid＠dillo.org

Just noticed I didn't replied this to the list (by mistake). -- Cheers Jorge.-

Dec. 30, 2010

[patch]: modernize configure.in's initialization and configuration

by onepoint＠starurchin.org

On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 02:38:23PM +0000, corvid wrote: > Jeremy wrote: > > Dillo's configure.in uses some obsolete autoconf/automake macros > > and calls some others in obsolete ways. This patch brings it > > (mostly) up to date. > > How ancient would a user's auto* have to be to be unable to > recognize the newer form? Users don't run autoconf. What matters is whether the dev's auto* versions are new enough. Unfortunately the man pages don't say when the new macro syntaxes were introduced, but my impression is that the old versions have been deprecated for years. For comparison my versions are autoconf 2.64 (released 2009/07/26) and automake 1.11 (released 2009/05/27). Are any devs using older versions? (I thought my system was usually older than the rest of yours, witness the time when I was still on GCC 3 and submitted patches that broke under GCC 4.) I checked the release announcements on the autotools list back to autoconf 2.60 (released 2006/06/26) and automake 1.10 (released 2006/08/15) and didn't see any references to the new syntaxes of AC_INIT and AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE, so I assume that we're OK unless some of the devs have tools from before the second half of 2006. Also, after searching the autotools mailing list archives (all the way back to Feb 2003): there are no references to AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE, and of the 5 mentions of AC_INIT, the only reference to new syntax is the addition of the optional 5th argument to specify the package URL. I think we're pretty safe with the new syntax! Regards, Jeremy Henty

Dec. 30, 2010

[patch]: modernize configure.in's initialization and configuration

by jcid＠dillo.org

On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 01:22:38PM +0000, Jeremy Henty wrote: > > Dillo's configure.in uses some obsolete autoconf/automake macros and > calls some others in obsolete ways. This patch brings it (mostly) up > to date. > > Any problems with this or shall I push it? From the patch and docs, it looks OK to commit. +1 -- Cheers Jorge.-

Dec. 30, 2010

[patch]: modernize configure.in's initialization and configuration

by corvid＠lavabit.com

Jeremy wrote: > Dillo's configure.in uses some obsolete autoconf/automake macros and > calls some others in obsolete ways. This patch brings it (mostly) up > to date. How ancient would a user's auto* have to be to be unable to recognize the newer form?

Dec. 30, 2010