[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: AC_PACKAGE_VERSION visibility slightly changed in autoconf-2.69c. Bu
From: |
Nick Bowler |
Subject: |
Re: AC_PACKAGE_VERSION visibility slightly changed in autoconf-2.69c. Bug or feature? |
Date: |
Thu, 22 Oct 2020 12:20:41 -0400 |
On 2020-10-22, Nick Bowler <nbowler@draconx.ca> wrote:
> On 22/10/2020, Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 11:53 AM Nick Bowler <nbowler@draconx.ca> wrote:
>>> On 2020-10-22, Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com> wrote:
>>> > On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 10:25 PM Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> On 10/21/20 6:15 AM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>>> >> > We*could* add a special case in AC_INIT where, if any of the
>>> >> > third,
>>> >> > fourth, or fifth arguments contain the literal strings
>>> >> > `AC_PACKAGE_NAME` or `AC_PACKAGE_VERSION`, those are replaced with
>>> >> > the
>>> >> > values of the first and second argument, respectively. This would
>>> >> > keep the GHC code working as-is. I'm not sure whether that's a
>>> >> > good
>>> >> > idea; cc:ing Paul and Eric for their thoughts.
>>> >>
>>> >> I'm not following all the details here
>>> >
>>> > The concrete problem is that, without the hack I described, we cannot
>>> > support both
>>> >
>>> > AC_INIT([foo], [1.0], [foo-bug@foo.org], [foo-AC_PACKAGE_VERSION])
>>> >
>>> > and
>>> >
>>> > AC_INIT([bar], [1.0], [foo-bug@[192.0.2.1]])
>>>
>>> I think this is missing the point. The m4 way is that such an
>>> email address should simply be double quoted to avoid the unwanted
>>> m4 expansion, for example:
>>>
>>> AC_INIT([bar], [1.0], [[foo-bug@[192.0.2.1]]])
>>
>> I tried that and it doesn't work. No amount of extra quotation (ok, I
>> only went up to four levels before I gave up) will prevent the square
>> brackets from being lost, if I don't have autoconf use m4_defn to set
>> the value of the shell variable PACKAGE_BUGREPORT.
>
> It works perfectly fine for me with Autoconf-2.69...
>
> % cat >configure.ac <<'EOF'
> AC_INIT([bar], [1.0], [[foo-bug@[192.0.2.1]]])
>
Bleh, I did the thing where I modified the script but forgot to revise
the email to include the update before sending... I added
AS_ECHO(["AC_AUTOCONF_VERSION"])
to this configure script which is displayed on all the transcripts.
> AS_ECHO(["AC_PACKAGE_BUGREPORT"])
> AS_ECHO(["$PACKAGE_BUGREPORT"])
>
> AC_OUTPUT
> EOF
>
> % autoconf-2.69
> % ./configure
> 2.69
> foo-bug@[192.0.2.1]
> foo-bug@[192.0.2.1]
> configure: creating ./config.status
>
> And it also works as expected with the zack/ac-init-quoting branch if I
> simply revert the patch hunks identified earlier in this thread:
>
> % autoconf-zack-patched
> % ./configure
> 2.69c.10-6487-dirty
> foo-bug@[192.0.2.1]
> foo-bug@[192.0.2.1]
> configure: creating ./config.status
>
> If the hunks are not reverted, quotation problems are readily apparent:
>
> % autoconf-zack-unpatched
(and obviously I ran configure here...)
> 2.69c.10-6487
> foo-bug@[192.0.2.1]
> [foo-bug@[192.0.2.1]]
> configure: creating ./config.status
>
> (those patch hunks are not the only instances of overquotation added by the
> patch, I see that the patch also overquotes the bugreport address in the
> configure --help text)
Cheers,
Nick
- Re: AC_PACKAGE_VERSION visibility slightly changed in autoconf-2.69c. Bug or feature?, (continued)
- Re: AC_PACKAGE_VERSION visibility slightly changed in autoconf-2.69c. Bug or feature?, Nick Bowler, 2020/10/20
- Re: AC_PACKAGE_VERSION visibility slightly changed in autoconf-2.69c. Bug or feature?, Sergei Trofimovich, 2020/10/20
- Re: AC_PACKAGE_VERSION visibility slightly changed in autoconf-2.69c. Bug or feature?, Zack Weinberg, 2020/10/21
- Re: AC_PACKAGE_VERSION visibility slightly changed in autoconf-2.69c. Bug or feature?, Nick Bowler, 2020/10/21
- Re: AC_PACKAGE_VERSION visibility slightly changed in autoconf-2.69c. Bug or feature?, Sergei Trofimovich, 2020/10/21
- Re: AC_PACKAGE_VERSION visibility slightly changed in autoconf-2.69c. Bug or feature?, Paul Eggert, 2020/10/21
- Re: AC_PACKAGE_VERSION visibility slightly changed in autoconf-2.69c. Bug or feature?, Zack Weinberg, 2020/10/22
- Re: AC_PACKAGE_VERSION visibility slightly changed in autoconf-2.69c. Bug or feature?, Nick Bowler, 2020/10/22
- Re: AC_PACKAGE_VERSION visibility slightly changed in autoconf-2.69c. Bug or feature?, Zack Weinberg, 2020/10/22
- Re: AC_PACKAGE_VERSION visibility slightly changed in autoconf-2.69c. Bug or feature?, Nick Bowler, 2020/10/22
- Re: AC_PACKAGE_VERSION visibility slightly changed in autoconf-2.69c. Bug or feature?,
Nick Bowler <=
- Re: AC_PACKAGE_VERSION visibility slightly changed in autoconf-2.69c. Bug or feature?, Zack Weinberg, 2020/10/22
- Re: AC_PACKAGE_VERSION visibility slightly changed in autoconf-2.69c. Bug or feature?, Nick Bowler, 2020/10/22
- Re: AC_PACKAGE_VERSION visibility slightly changed in autoconf-2.69c. Bug or feature?, Paul Eggert, 2020/10/22