Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 449245
Summary: | latest autoconf breaks same-line comments in config files | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Tom Lane <tgl> |
Component: | autoconf | Assignee: | Karsten Hopp <karsten> |
Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | high | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | hhorak, matt_domsch, mlichvar, mtasaka |
Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | Reopened |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2008-06-24 13:57:47 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 440169 |
Description
Tom Lane
2008-05-31 21:22:53 UTC
This might have worked wth older versions by pure luck, but upstream is aware of problems with that and discourages putting comments on the same line as preprocessor macros: from the autoconf info file: 4.9.1 Configuration Header Templates ... The use of old form templates, with `#define' instead of `#undef' is strongly discouraged. Similarly with old templates with comments on the same line as the `#undef'. Anyway, putting comments in preprocessor macros has never been a good idea. It says that it's "discouraged", which is the same wording that's been there for awhile. If this change is intentional, why doesn't it say "we intentionally broke this in 2.62"? In the particular case I'm dealing with, the symbol in question is not one of the ones that autoconf has been told to substitute, so I don't think it should be touching the line in the first place. Prior releases didn't ... reopening as suggested by the upstream developers in the discussion about this issue: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-autoconf/2008-06/msg00004.html A few nits in reply to comment #2: > It says that it's "discouraged", [...] The word "discouraged" is used for #define lines in the template, which have been in use for a while indeed (late 1990's ?). But comments on #undef template lines were never allowed. See http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/html_node/Header-Templates.html > the symbol in question is not one of the ones that autoconf has been told to substitute, so I don't think it should be touching the line in the first place. Prior releases didn't... This is pure coincidence; the remaining #undef lines in the template were always commented out. But recent releases of autconf did not recognize this line, because of the comment. OTOH, autoconf 2.13 did comment them out. See http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-autoconf/2008-06/msg00007.html See how that thread will evolve for the upstream descussion. You are right that the (syntactically wrong) "nested comment" is unfortunate, and you are right that the documentation (yes, the node linked above) needs improvement. Thanks for the bug report. autoconf-2.62-3.fc10 with a fix for this issue will be in rawhide soon. |