On 04.08.2011 11:07, Julian Foad wrote:
> Peter Samuelson wrote:
>> [Peter Samuelson]
>>> (It's news to me, in fact, that it was even possible to build a
>>> recent version of neon in such a way that it doesn't support the
>>> features we use.)
>> Followup from IRC: we determined that the reason Doug's neon library
>> didn't support XML functions is, he used 'configure --without-webdav'.
>> If you don't say --without-webdav, the neon configure script will
>> indeed find an appropriate XML library or die trying.
>> Now ... it would be possible to detect, explicitly, that neon was built
>> --without-webdav, and tailor our error appropriately. But it'd be ugly
>> code. Is it worth it? Do other users run into this problem?
> I'd say, don't look for this specific problem, just change our error
> message to be more honest. 'configure' has already printed
> "checking neon library version... 0.29.6"
> and the problem with the current error message
> "cannot find Neon"
> was simply that it contradicts the earlier message. So, on failure to
> compile and link a test program, just make the message say something
> "failed to compile and link a test program"
> instead. That's enough to make the user look at 'config.log' for more
checking neon usability... no
This is similar to the standard header checks, e.g.
checking stdio.h usability... yes
checking stdio.h presence... yes
checking for stdio.h... yes
Received on 2011-08-04 19:57:46 CEST