If there is precedent for it, and it WORKS, then check it in! Why
leave the build broken for some people?
The more you wait for consensus/feedback, the longer you leave people
in the lurch. You're doing anything BUT helping those people. You
certainly can't break things any more for them.
Cheers,
-g
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 06:29, Jeremy Whitlock <jcscoobyrs_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> Still working on it. I am not able to reproduce locally but based on
>> the failures, I see the problem. Now...do we handle this gracefully
>> like we do with zlib, putting the -L$serf_prefix/lib in LDFLAGS, or do
>> we go back to the way it was? If I don't have a solid fix soon, I'll
>> rollback.
>
> By the way, the above approach does work. Is it right? I'll let you
> guys decide and we'll go from there. Attached, and pasted below, is
> the patch. Like I mentioned before, this is the way we handle zlib.
>
> --
> Take care,
>
> Jeremy Whitlock
> http://www.thoughtspark.org
>
>
>
> Index: build/ac-macros/serf.m4
> ===================================================================
> --- build/ac-macros/serf.m4 (revision 35270)
> +++ build/ac-macros/serf.m4 (working copy)
> @@ -48,6 +48,7 @@
> SVN_SERF_INCLUDES="-I$serf_prefix/include/serf-0"
> SVN_SERF_LIBS="-lserf-0"
> SVN_SERF_EXPORT_LIBS="-L$serf_prefix/lib -lserf-0"
> + LDFLAGS="$LDFLAGS -L$serf_prefix/lib"
> elif test $serf_found = "reconfig"; then
> serf_found=yes
> fi
>
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1028293
Received on 2009-01-16 10:55:58 CET