Re: [tcpdump-workers] AC_LBL_FIXINCLUDES does not make it into configure

2023-01-18 Thread Denis Ovsienko via tcpdump-workers
--- Begin Message ---
On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 18:35:58 -0800
Guy Harris  wrote:

> If you're curious what AC_LBL_FIXINCLUDES is for, and why most
> platforms don't need it, continue reading.

Thank you for explaining the context Guy, it is very educational.  Is
AC_LBL_UNION_WAIT of a similar origin?  Neither tcpdump nor libpcap use
it.

-- 
Denis Ovsienko
--- End Message ---
___
tcpdump-workers mailing list
tcpdump-workers@lists.tcpdump.org
https://lists.sandelman.ca/mailman/listinfo/tcpdump-workers


Re: [tcpdump-workers] AC_LBL_FIXINCLUDES does not make it into configure

2023-01-18 Thread Guy Harris via tcpdump-workers
--- Begin Message ---
On Jan 18, 2023, at 1:07 AM, Denis Ovsienko  wrote:

> Thank you for explaining the context Guy, it is very educational.

A significant part of what's in autoconf, and a significant part of what's in 
at least some configure scripts, dates back to old UN*Xes.

ISO C and POSIX have, over time, rendered a lot of old-time tests unnecessary 
except for hobbyists and ancient "if it ain't broke don't fix it" systems:


https://www.theregister.com/2001/04/12/missing_novell_server_discovered_after/

(although that one was Netware rather than UN*X, there may be old UN*X versions 
running on old hardware still out there).

> Is AC_LBL_UNION_WAIT of a similar origin?

Probably.

>  Neither tcpdump nor libpcap use it.

I think BSD's "union wait" has been supplanted by various POSIX-specified 
macros to pull apart an exit status stored in an int, and, in the 3.4/0.4 
timeframe, I don't think tcpdump or libpcap had any code to wait for a child 
process, and thus didn't need AC_LBL_UNION_WAIT.--- End Message ---
___
tcpdump-workers mailing list
tcpdump-workers@lists.tcpdump.org
https://lists.sandelman.ca/mailman/listinfo/tcpdump-workers


Re: [tcpdump-workers] AC_LBL_FIXINCLUDES does not make it into configure

2023-01-18 Thread Denis Ovsienko via tcpdump-workers
--- Begin Message ---
On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 09:22:28 -0500
Michael Richardson  wrote:

> I haven't heard a clear argument as to what autoconf/configure gets
> us today over cmake, and maintaining both seems a huge waste of
> energy.

There's a comment buried in one of the build files: a release tarball
with a configure script in it does not require Autoconf to build the
source, whereas the same tarball with CMake files in it does require
CMake to build the source.

As it turns out, there is another unused macro (AC_LBL_HAVE_RUN_PATH),
tcpslice became the first to lose this luggage.

-- 
Denis Ovsienko
--- End Message ---
___
tcpdump-workers mailing list
tcpdump-workers@lists.tcpdump.org
https://lists.sandelman.ca/mailman/listinfo/tcpdump-workers


Re: [tcpdump-workers] AC_LBL_FIXINCLUDES does not make it into configure

2023-01-18 Thread Guy Harris via tcpdump-workers
--- Begin Message ---
On Jan 18, 2023, at 3:32 PM, Denis Ovsienko via tcpdump-workers 
 wrote:

> As it turns out, there is another unused macro (AC_LBL_HAVE_RUN_PATH),
> tcpslice became the first to lose this luggage.

Unused in libpcap back to 0.4 and tcpdump back to 3.4, so it may be another one 
used in some LBL projects but not libpcap or tcpdump.--- End Message ---
___
tcpdump-workers mailing list
tcpdump-workers@lists.tcpdump.org
https://lists.sandelman.ca/mailman/listinfo/tcpdump-workers