[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Building Make out of Git: Gettext requirements

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: Building Make out of Git: Gettext requirements
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 19:38:51 +0300

> From: Paul Smith <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden
> Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 11:44:02 -0400
> On Sat, 2013-04-20 at 13:50 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Do we really need to require 0.18.1 or can this restriction be lifted?
> > I hacked configure.ac to require 0.17, and didn't see any problems
> > afterwards.
> You can see this bug:
> http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?37307

That just says you must use Gettext 0.18 to be able to avoid static
linking.  It doesn't say the build won't work

> I confess I didn't get a satisfactory answer to my question, of why the
> minimum version in configure.ac must be changed.  It seems to me that if
> I build the make distribution tarball with a newer version of gettext,
> regardless of the minimum version specified in configure.ac, it should
> be good enough.

That is also my understanding.  The macros in config/ are produced
when you run autoreconf as part of tarring the release.

If that is indeed the case, it is simply wrong to bump the required

But even if building the tarball is not enough, it is IMO wrong to
solve the problem like this.  For starters, it punishes OpenBSD users
themselves, because previously they could build Make, albeit
statically linked with gettet -- now they won't be able to do that at
all, unless they upgrade Gettext!

And it is certainly wrong wrt users of other platforms, which didn't
have the problem in the first place.

How about replacing the requirement with a warning, when the host is

> However, Brad was clear that he believed that the minimum version MUST
> be increased in configure.ac in order to get the benefits.

I don't see how he could be right in that.

> If this is a problem we can get back into it and ask Brad for more
> clarification, and maybe check on the OpenBSD lists for details.

I think we should indeed ask him.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]