On Jul 11 10:27:50, ghar...@sonic.net wrote: > On Jul 11, 2018, at 4:22 AM, Petr Vorel <pvo...@suse.cz> wrote: > > Libpcap's configure script is outdated. > > Although I'd prefer remove configure from git
+1 > We have CMake support, so, as far as I'm concerned, getting autotools to work > on Windows is Somebody Else's Problem, and if Somebody Else cares about it, > they can figure out how to make it work (without breaking it on UN*X!) Exactly. > I would *personally* prefer that we not have generated configure files in Git > and require that autoconf be run (or, if it needs to be run with particular > arguments, supply an autopen.sh file and require that it be run); if anybody > has an argument against it, let us know. The ./configure script does need to be generated in the first place. I would very much preffer we have a simple, hand-written ./configure, and avoid the GNU auto* hell altogether, much like e.g. the extremely portable http://mandoc.bsd.lv/ does. Would the libpcap developers kindly consider this? I am willing to do the work. On Jul 11 14:23:56, ghar...@sonic.net wrote: > There isn't an "ANSI compiler test". > > Currently, libpcap *and* tcpdump use the standard autoconf macro > AC_PROG_CC_C99, which checks for flags necessary to implement C99 features. > We require a subset of C99 features to be available in the compiler, so we > *can't* remove that. Is this subset described somewhere? Currently, configure.ac says # Try to enable as many C99 features as we can. # At minimum, we want C++/C99-style // comments. > > Linking (shared) is currently not possible though. Fixing that is more > > complicated as libpcap's Makefiles are mostly handcrafted (don't use e.g. > > automake which would handle OS specific things such as the setting proper > > file extensions). > > Can automake be used with non-GPLed software? Yes; but the auto* tools generally assume the world is GNU. > “Automake places no restrictions on the distribution of the resulting > Makefile.ins. We still encourage software authors to distribute their work > under terms like those of the GPL, but doing so is not required to use > Automake. Ah, you mean "can" as in "is allowed to"? Getting rid of autotools would also have the welcome side-effect of getting rid of the GPL restrictions. Jan _______________________________________________ tcpdump-workers mailing list tcpdump-workers@lists.tcpdump.org https://lists.sandelman.ca/mailman/listinfo/tcpdump-workers
