[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Autoconf testing results.
From: |
Pavel Roskin |
Subject: |
Re: Autoconf testing results. |
Date: |
Tue, 27 Feb 2001 12:59:46 -0500 (EST) |
Hello, Akim!
> Ash 0.2 is already burned for being too broken. Does it fail
> gracefully? Is the user warned properly?
It dumps core gracefully, without saying a single word:
$ ash configure
Segmentation fault
> Could you had this limitation in the documentation?
If we make a patch, the documentation will be changed.
> > Also ifnames cannot be run by ash-0.2 for the same reason.
>
> Well, there is a big AWK program in there, held in a string. It sure
> is bigger than 1K.
> I don't get it: we reverted the test to use test -f. How can it fail?
> Arg. Forgot to update Autoconf's configure.
I'm always doing it, but not this time. Maybe Autoconf needs a dist-hook
to regenerate configure on "make dist"?
> > and fails because it cannot create frozen files. After giving it the
> > right M4, configure and make work. However, all tests involving autoupdate
> > fail because Perl is missing. They shouldn't fail, they should be ignored.
>
> Right. Should be handled as autoscan is.
We don't have a test for autoscan at all.
> > The issues with ash-0.2 can be worked around by creating temporary files,
> > but I doubt whether we should do it.
>
> Nope, let's not. This shell is already too dangerous (given the way
> it propagates or does not propagate $?). But having a nice message
> displayed to warn the user would be a good thing.
How about something like this in AS_SHELL_SANITIZE:
if (`exit 1`; :); then :
else
AC_MSG_ERROR([Sorry, this shell is not capable of running this script.])
fi
I haven't yet figured out why AC_MSG_ERROR doesn't work as expected at
this point.
Important questions:
1) Do we want it to be in AS_SHELL_SANITIZE?
2) Should we check the other bugs, such as string size limit?
Regards,
Pavel Roskin