[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: gc.m4 and hard failure
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: gc.m4 and hard failure |
Date: |
Wed, 8 Mar 2006 13:48:58 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.11 |
Hi Simon,
* Simon Josefsson wrote on Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 10:36:28AM CET:
> Ralf Wildenhues <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > Better, thanks. But
> > --disable-random-device (--enable-random-devide=no)
> > could IMVHO still be given a useful meaning, which it currently does not
> > have. Since I don't actually use this code in any project, I can't tell
> > you how realistic this usage case would be.
>
> I'm inclined to fix this in the source code, so that
> --disable-random-device actually end up disabling the use of just that
> device. What do you think?
Oh, sure, I guess that would be fine. In the macro, you'd have to
change the AC_ARG_ENABLE argument ACTION-IF-GIVEN though:
test "$enableval" != "no" && NAME_OF_RANDOM_DEVICE=$enableval
to set the value in any case (so the user can override your defaults),
and avoid the warning later that file `no' does not exist:
AC_CHECK_FILE($NAME_OF_RANDOM_DEVICE,,
AC_MSG_WARN([[device for (strong) random data `$NAME_OF_RANDOM_DEVICE'
does not exist]]))
Or am I missing something here (untested)?
Cheers,
Ralf
- gc.m4 and hard failure, Ralf Wildenhues, 2006/03/03
- Re: gc.m4 and hard failure, Simon Josefsson, 2006/03/04
- 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 <=
- 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