[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: gc.m4 and hard failure
From: |
Simon Josefsson |
Subject: |
Re: gc.m4 and hard failure |
Date: |
Sat, 04 Mar 2006 17:29:34 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Ralf Wildenhues <address@hidden> writes:
> It would be great if the gc.m4 module could be taught not to fail when
> no random devices exist (as seen on hppa2.0-hp-hpux10.20). Passing
>
> --disable-random-device --disable-pseudo-random-device \
> --disable-nonce-device
>
> did not help. libgcrypt was not installed either.
>
> This would help automated testing of gnulib mega test; faking a cross
> compile helps but is so different as to be an actually different test.
>
>
> More generally, I think it would be good if all Gnulib modules allowed
> at least some way of invocation that allowed configure to continue even
> if the tested resources are not present; an extra RUN-IF-FAIL argument
> (possibly defaulting to AC_MSG_ERROR or so) could serve well, for
> example.
I agree. The functions using those random devices can return an
error, so I suggest turning the errors into warnings, and make the
code properly return an error if the device is unavailable. I think
the code already does this though.
- gc.m4 and hard failure, Ralf Wildenhues, 2006/03/03
- Re: gc.m4 and hard failure,
Simon Josefsson <=
- Re: gc.m4 and hard failure, Simon Josefsson, 2006/03/07
- Re: gc.m4 and hard failure, Ralf Wildenhues, 2006/03/07
- Re: gc.m4 and hard failure, Simon Josefsson, 2006/03/08
- Re: gc.m4 and hard failure, Ralf Wildenhues, 2006/03/08
- Re: gc.m4 and hard failure, Simon Josefsson, 2006/03/08
- Re: gc.m4 and hard failure, Ralf Wildenhues, 2006/03/08
- Re: gc.m4 and hard failure, Simon Josefsson, 2006/03/08
- Re: gc.m4 and hard failure, Paul Eggert, 2006/03/10