[Rpm-maint] [PATCH] Revert "Only build bundled fts if system has a bad version that doesn't handle LFS"

[Dmitry V. Levin]

On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 08:22:23AM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On 08/17/2017 11:28 PM, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 08:16:12AM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> >> On 08/16/2017 11:51 PM, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 08:15:02PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> >>>> The subtle test is too subtle for its own good, this patch breaks
> >>>> thirty six testcases on 32bit architectures.
> >>>>
> >>>> This reverts commit 1eadabe4453ef32eb6c3bc837094e1ca998affcc.
> > [leaving non-technical part aside for a while]
> >> But as the
> >> revert commit message says, the test is way too subtle for my liking, I
> >> never liked it at all because of that. In retrospective, that distrust
> >> combined with the clock-is-ticking situation ... I don't think I  ever
> >> actually thought to suspect fakechroot in this case.
> > 
> > Sorry but your distrust of AC_CHECK_HEADERS([fts.h]) looks rather irrational.
> > What kind of doubts do you have wrt this very basic test?
> > 
> > Do you have any doubts about AC_CHECK_HEADERS documented behaviour, e.g.
> > that it uses the compiler to test header usability, and it is affected
> > by the arrangements made by AC_SYS_LARGEFILE?
> > 
> > Even the memorable 8-year-old change of AC_CHECK_HEADERS behaviour
> > described in [1] shouldn't affect this case because glibc's fts.h used
> > to issue an "#error" in case of _FILE_OFFSET_BITS==64 thus breaking
> > the preprocessor test, too.
> > 
> > There are plenty of AC_CHECK_HEADERS invocations in configure.ac -
> > do they also look doubtful to you?
> 
> Meh.
> 
> "Any technology, no matter how primitive, is magic to those who don't 
> understand it."
> 
> The "earlier configure.ac foo hidden side-effects cause this to do 
> something else" that somehow ends up being completely counter-intuitive 
> and magic to me.

You hardly can call them hidden because they are clearly documented,
e.g. https://www.gnu.org/savannah-checkouts/gnu/autoconf/manual/html_node/System-Services.html#index-AC_005fSYS_005fLARGEFILE-1102
says "Define _FILE_OFFSET_BITS and _LARGE_FILES if necessary".

> I'm still deep in the superstition phase when in comes to autoconf ;)

You know, this can be fixed, too. ;)


-- 
ldv
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-maint/attachments/20170818/c6f129d1/attachment.asc>