Richard Hansen wrote:
> Max Bowsher wrote:
>>>> I don't actually mind a moderate about of feature tests for a contrib
>>>> program, provided they aren't ones which take a long time to run.
>>> Would you consider adding tests for C99 support to be moderate? That
>>> would require upgrading autoconf to at least 2.60.
>> It's just one (or a few) feature test macros, right? I'd be fine with that.
>
> There's one autoconf-supplied macro (AC_PROG_CC_C99) and a custom macro
> to test for a broken snprintf (see
> contrib/server-side/svnstsw/conf/stsw_func_snprintf_broken.m4).
>
> However, AC_PROG_CC_C99 has a side effect that affects everything: it
> alters the default CC variable, so instead of CC=gcc, you get CC="gcc
> -std=gnu99". I don't expect this to cause any problems, but I'm not
> really sure.
Um. That's definitely not acceptable. Do:
save_CC=$CC
AC_PROG_CC_C99
CC_C99=$CC
CC=$save_CC
and arrange for svnstsw to use CC_C99.
>> I'm not sure that *any* contrib programs are built in the Windows build,
>> You'd have to ask an expert in that area, but this may not be a problem
>> at all.
>
> That would make my life easier. Do you know who the build system
> experts are?
No, but grepping in build/ convinces me that tools and contrib are
definitely not part of the Windows build.
>> Though, if it *is* going to merge into svnserve, that makes de-C99-ing
>> it something that will need to be done in the future, which makes
>> several of the points above a little redundant.
>
> Maybe it is a little redundant, but I think that integrating the code
> as-is into the build system is still worthwhile. I don't know what the
> policy is for patch-release changes, but I can see svnstsw making it
> into a future 1.5.x release once the build system integration happens.
> I wouldn't expect any changes to svnserve to make it into a release
> before 1.6.0 (because of backwards-compatibility issues). Thus,
> build-system integration should allow us to put the functionality into
> users' hands quickly.
>
> Besides, build-system integration should be easier, so if something
> comes up and I can't dedicate the time to integrate the svnstsw
> functionality into svnserve, at least users will have something.
Sorry to disappoint, but the rule is generally "bugfixes *only*". The
buildsystem is a complex and somewhat finicky beast - I think it
unlikely we'd allow this sort of thing in a patch release.
>> Still, dealing with the autoconf 2.6x transition in the Subversion 1.6.0
>> timeframe might be a good thing anyway, so it wouldn't hurt to add that
>> configure test even if it was on a temporary basis.
>
> Sounds good. I'd like to start coding, and I think that working in a
> branch makes the most sense. I know that I have commit access to
> contrib, but do I have the ability to create a branch? If so, are there
> any naming conventions I should follow?
You do have access, and are welcome to create branches. The branch name
should indicate what you intend to do in it - e.g. "svnstsw-buildsystem"
- but there's not much other convention.
Max.
Received on 2008-05-08 23:08:55 CEST