Requiring newer autoconf for X.Org packages?

[Alan Coopersmith]

On 8/30/22 15:40, Keith Packard wrote:
> Alan Coopersmith <alan.coopersmith at oracle.com> writes:
> 
>> But currently we leave it mostly up to whoever builds the tarballs for release
>> to decide what version of autoconf to use (though they in turn mostly rely on
>> what their distro builder packages in the version they run), and even the latest
>> xorg-server-21.1.4 tarball was built with autoconf 2.69.
> 
> Yeah, GCC still uses 2.69 internally, Debian stable ships with 2.69, if
> I were shipping a generated configure script, I'd be tempted to use that
> too.

I know 2.70 itself broke a bunch of things, but I thought 2.71 fixed them.
Are there still problems, or are people just being extra cautious after the
poor experience with 2.70?

>> If not, we could start bumping the AC_PREREQ to 2.70 in just the repos that
>> use reallocarray, to ensure we don't accidentally ship versions that can't
>> build on NetBSD - that's still a small subset of the modules we ship - only
>> 11 out of 265 so far:
> 
> Is there something keeping us from just adding _OPENBSD_SOURCE somewhere
> in xorg-macros.m4 and have the affected repos use that?

I hadn't thought of doing that - it's a little more work for us up front,
but otherwise similar level of effort.

There's not a great fit for it there - I don't see any other macros that end
up making C defines - but I suppose we could add it to XORG_COMPILER_FLAGS.

-- 
         -Alan Coopersmith-                 alan.coopersmith at oracle.com
          Oracle Solaris Engineering - https://blogs.oracle.com/solaris