Thread: Style question
We currently have a patch in the doc/FAQ_SCO file for the "accept doesn't send AF_UNIX to the caller" problem on SCO UnixWare 7.1.[01]. Is there any problem with configure finding out we are on one of those releases (uname -v), and setting a UW= variable so the user doesn't have to remember to patch their sources? Larry -- Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler Phone: +1 972-414-9812 (voice) Internet: ler@lerctr.org US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749
Larry Rosenman writes: > We currently have a patch in the doc/FAQ_SCO file for the "accept > doesn't send AF_UNIX to the caller" problem on SCO UnixWare 7.1.[01]. > Is there any problem with configure finding out we are on one of those > releases (uname -v), and setting a UW= variable so the user doesn't > have to remember to patch their sources? I think we should install this patch conditional on some __UnixWare__ #define, if there's a good one. If there isn't, then we can add our own #define ACCEPT_IS_BUSTED_IN_PECULIAR_WAYS in src/include/port/unixware.h. Testing runtime behaviour in configure is not good "style". :) -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net http://yi.org/peter-e/
* Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> [001021 11:54]: > Larry Rosenman writes: > > > We currently have a patch in the doc/FAQ_SCO file for the "accept > > doesn't send AF_UNIX to the caller" problem on SCO UnixWare 7.1.[01]. > > Is there any problem with configure finding out we are on one of those > > releases (uname -v), and setting a UW= variable so the user doesn't > > have to remember to patch their sources? > > I think we should install this patch conditional on some __UnixWare__ > #define, if there's a good one. If there isn't, then we can add our own > #define ACCEPT_IS_BUSTED_IN_PECULIAR_WAYS in src/include/port/unixware.h. > > Testing runtime behaviour in configure is not good "style". :) I was just thinking of checking uname -v and if it is 7.1.0 or 7.1.1 set a define that pq_comm.c sees and includes the fix. There isn't a good #define yet.. :-( LER > > -- > Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net http://yi.org/peter-e/ -- Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler Phone: +1 972-414-9812 (voice) Internet: ler@lerctr.org US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749
Larry Rosenman writes: > I was just thinking of checking uname -v and if it is 7.1.0 or 7.1.1 > set a define that pq_comm.c sees and includes the fix. There isn't a > good #define yet.. :-( We could use the result of checking host system type... i586-sco-sysv5uw7.1.1 But which one is the good one and which one is broken? -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net http://yi.org/peter-e/
* Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> [001021 13:25]: > Larry Rosenman writes: > > > I was just thinking of checking uname -v and if it is 7.1.0 or 7.1.1 > > set a define that pq_comm.c sees and includes the fix. There isn't a > > good #define yet.. :-( > > We could use the result of > > checking host system type... i586-sco-sysv5uw7.1.1 7.1.0 and 7.1.1 are both broken. SCO hasn't released a fixed version yet. LER > > But which one is the good one and which one is broken? > > -- > Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net http://yi.org/peter-e/ -- Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler Phone: +1 972-414-9812 (voice) Internet: ler@lerctr.org US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749