Re: misc/50166

[Antti Kantee <pooka%iki.fi@localhost>]

The following reply was made to PR misc/50166; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Antti Kantee <pooka%iki.fi@localhost>
To: Robert Millan <rmh%gnu.org@localhost>, gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost,
 misc-bug-people%netbsd.org@localhost, gnats-admin%netbsd.org@localhost, netbsd-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost
Cc: 
Subject: Re: misc/50166
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2015 23:14:38 +0000

 On 28/08/15 17:00, Robert Millan wrote:
 > El 26/08/15 a les 14:05, Antti Kantee ha escrit:
 >> The following reply was made to PR misc/50166; it has been noted by
 >> GNATS.
 >>
 >> From: Antti Kantee <pooka%iki.fi@localhost>
 >> To: gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost
 >> Cc:
 >> Subject: Re: misc/50166
 >> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 12:02:00 +0000
 >>
 >>   Adding AC_CANONICAL_HOST() to configure.ac makes configure fail because
 >>   a reference to install-sh is generated (and install-sh is not present).
 >>
 >  > ....
 >  > So, I tried it, and indeed there was fallout from AC_CANONICAL_HOST()
 > (as noted in the PR).  Can you try to work around it somehow?
 > src/tools/make/configure.ac contains the official way to regenerate
 > configure.
 >
 > If you want to keep it simple, I could switch it to use uname instead of
 > AC_CANONICAL_HOST(). It
 > will break cross-compiling but AFAICS the whole purpose of this script
 > is to bootstrap make on
 > non-NetBSD systems, which is a very native-build oriented end, and I
 > doubt cross-compiling was
 > ever intended to work here anyways.
 >
 > Does that sound good?
 
 I assume you mean cross-compiling in the Canadian sense, i.e. building 
 the tools for another system.  I don't know if that works or is intended 
 to work.  You can ask tech-toolchain%netbsd.org@localhost and observe the outcry 
 or lack thereof.
 
 Testing for availability of MAXPATHLEN would be better, though.  I guess 
 you can just look at some tool using MAXPATHLEN and determine what you 
 need to include so that you can test if it's available or not.