Dave Shield wrote:
> I haven't checked Wes' patch, but does this *force* the disabling of
> the perl stuff? Or just affect the default build.

It forces. Wes' summary on IRC:

when explicitly enabling it explicitly dies.
when implicitly enabling it simply doesn't built it.

>> What can we do? Offer an override flag? Make it a warning only?

> Proposal:
> $ cd ~/MAIN-SOURCE-TREE; ./configure ; make ; make install
> // builds and installs perl modules
> $ cd ~/SHADOW-TREE; ./configure ; make ; make install
> // omits embedded perl and perl modules
> $ cd ~/SHADOW-TREE; ./configure --with-embedded-perl ; make ; make install
> // builds and installs perl modules, etc - as requested
> The details may not be quite correct, but you should get the idea.
> I've no idea how this matches against the current state of play.

See my reply to Wes from minutes ago. Any tinkering with the source tree
won't work for me, because I'm doing parallel builds from a single
shared source tree.

> I'm also a little concerned about how much tinkering this might
> involve to get right.
> We're into pre-release mode now, so need to be concentrating on that.
> "Unusual" configurations (such as shadow tree builds) may have to take
> something of a back seat until we've released 5.4. Not inevitably,
> but if there's a conflict between fixing stuff for such a
> configuration, and getting 5.4 out of the door, I don't think we
> should delay things unduly.

This isn't just my personal way of building, but rather the way I'm
doing automated build testing *for* 5.4. Given that I'm currently fixing
several "breaks the build" type of bugs a week based on these results
I'd regard this as essential *especially* in pre/rc release mode. You don't?


Thomas Anders (thomas.anders at blue-cable.de)

Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash
Net-snmp-coders mailing list