[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: recommending AC_SYS_YEAR2038_REQUIRED ?
From: |
Bruno Haible |
Subject: |
Re: recommending AC_SYS_YEAR2038_REQUIRED ? |
Date: |
Mon, 10 Apr 2023 23:42:48 +0200 |
Paul,
Here's a suggestion for a compromise.
Recall that the macro AC_SYS_YEAR2038_REQUIRED is like AC_SYS_YEAR2038,
with two modifications:
- It causes configure to fail if a large 'time_t' is unavailable,
- It removes the configure option --disable-year2038.
How about a middle ground between the two macros? A macro, say
AC_SYS_YEAR2038_UNLESS_OPT_OUT (*), that
- like AC_SYS_YEAR2038, has the option --disable-year2038,
- like AC_SYS_YEAR2038_REQUIRED, fails if a large 'time_t' is
unavailable and --disable-year2038 was not specified.
It would force the packager to pass --disable-year2038 if he
accepts the year-2038 problems.
It would not require additional documentation.
That would be OK with me.
Would it be OK with you?
Bruno
(*) Feel free to find a better name.
- recommending AC_SYS_YEAR2038_REQUIRED ?, Bruno Haible, 2023/04/10
- Re: recommending AC_SYS_YEAR2038_REQUIRED ?, Pádraig Brady, 2023/04/10
- Re: recommending AC_SYS_YEAR2038_REQUIRED ?, Zack Weinberg, 2023/04/10
- Re: recommending AC_SYS_YEAR2038_REQUIRED ?,
Bruno Haible <=
- Re: recommending AC_SYS_YEAR2038_REQUIRED ?, Paul Eggert, 2023/04/10
- Re: recommending AC_SYS_YEAR2038_REQUIRED ?, Bruno Haible, 2023/04/10
- Re: recommending AC_SYS_YEAR2038_REQUIRED ?, Paul Eggert, 2023/04/10
- Re: recommending AC_SYS_YEAR2038_REQUIRED ?, Zack Weinberg, 2023/04/11
- Re: recommending AC_SYS_YEAR2038_REQUIRED ?, Paul Eggert, 2023/04/19
- Re: recommending AC_SYS_YEAR2038_REQUIRED ?, Zack Weinberg, 2023/04/19
- Re: recommending AC_SYS_YEAR2038_REQUIRED ?, Sam James, 2023/04/12