2010/3/21 Enrico Tröger <enrico.troeger@uvena.de>

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:27:37 +0200, Enrico wrote:

>On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:06:38 -0400, Erik wrote:
>
>
>>> In fact, I think there are many system scripts which
>>> use 'which', so if you don't have 'which', your system shouldn't
>>> even work.
>>>
>>
>>It's that Geany is built in a clean chroot build environment along
>>with only the compilers and libs required. ``which`` is not a
>>necessary build requirement IMHO. We should have a portable, standard,
>>``configure`` that can build Geany, not a system utility script that
>>calls any arbitrary prog and forces users to figure out which ones are
>>needed.
>
>The whole reason for using "which" was to be more portable. The
>autoconf macros you mention are broken or at least not usable for
>checking for a C++ compiler (or I'm too stupid, then they are just to
>hard to use).
>
>As Nick said, if it is such an issue and you know it that better, we
>would be happy about a sane patch to improve things.

This patch actually reduced portability.

https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=787791&aid=2973764&group_id=153444

Solutions would be welcome.

Hi Enrico,

As you know I'm AC_phobic but, as I understand the comment in configure.ac the idea is to actually confirm that AC_PROG_CXX found the right thing.

Isn't the best way to do this to actually compile something simple and see if it works rather than testing for existance of the executable? Maybe just compile the definition of a global variable.

Cheers
Lex

Regards,
Enrico

--
Get my GPG key from http://www.uvena.de/pub.asc

_______________________________________________
Geany-devel mailing list
Geany-devel@uvena.de
http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel