Debian Bug report logs - #327655
autoconf: AC_PATH_X* requires libxt-dev

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>

To: submit@bugs.debian.org

Subject: autoconf: AC_PATH_X* requires libxt-dev

Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 16:37:02 +0200

Package: autoconf
Version: 2.59a-3
Severity: important

Hi,

Various package need a build dependency on libxt-dev because the
configure script checks for X11/Intrinsic.h which is part of
libxt-dev but otherwise do not need libxt-dev at all.

See for instance http://bugs.debian.org/233969 for a discussion
about it, that also has a patch.

It would be nice if this could be fixed upstream (for 2.60?) if
it isn't already.


Kurt

Message #10 received at 327655@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thomas Dickey <dickey@radix.net>

To: Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>, 327655@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#327655: autoconf: AC_PATH_X* requires libxt-dev

Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 13:03:00 -0400

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 04:50:16PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> Package: autoconf
> Version: 2.59a-3
> Severity: important
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Various package need a build dependency on libxt-dev because the
> configure script checks for X11/Intrinsic.h which is part of
> libxt-dev but otherwise do not need libxt-dev at all.

> See for instance http://bugs.debian.org/233969 for a discussion
> about it, that also has a patch.

Changing the behavior of the macro would break existing applications.
The discussion at this url doesn't take that into account.

-- 
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #15 received at 327655@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>

To: Thomas Dickey <dickey@radix.net>

Cc: 327655@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#327655: autoconf: AC_PATH_X* requires libxt-dev

Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:38:48 +0200

On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 01:03:00PM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> 
> > See for instance http://bugs.debian.org/233969 for a discussion
> > about it, that also has a patch.
> 
> Changing the behavior of the macro would break existing applications.
> The discussion at this url doesn't take that into account.

Can you elaborate on that?  Break in what way?  It could find the
wrong include path?


Kurt

Message #20 received at 327655@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thomas Dickey <dickey@radix.net>

To: Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>

Cc: Thomas Dickey <dickey@radix.net>, 327655@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#327655: autoconf: AC_PATH_X* requires libxt-dev

Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 13:59:32 -0400

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 07:38:48PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 01:03:00PM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> > 
> > > See for instance http://bugs.debian.org/233969 for a discussion
> > > about it, that also has a patch.
> > 
> > Changing the behavior of the macro would break existing applications.
> > The discussion at this url doesn't take that into account.
> 
> Can you elaborate on that?  Break in what way?  It could find the
> wrong include path?

As I read the comment, it sounds as if you're thinking that the macro
that doesn't check for Xt can replace the one that does.

-- 
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #25 received at 327655@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>

To: Thomas Dickey <dickey@radix.net>

Cc: 327655@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#327655: autoconf: AC_PATH_X* requires libxt-dev

Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 20:42:34 +0200

On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 01:59:32PM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 07:38:48PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > Can you elaborate on that?  Break in what way?  It could find the
> > wrong include path?
> 
> As I read the comment, it sounds as if you're thinking that the macro
> that doesn't check for Xt can replace the one that does.

I'm sorry, but I really can't follow you ...  Is there a need to
check that Xt is exists for all packages?

I can understand that some packages do need Xt, but that's not
what the intention of those macro's is.  From the manual:

 - Macro: AC_PATH_X
     Try to locate the X Window System include files and libraries.  If
     the user gave the command line options `--x-includes=DIR' and
     `--x-libraries=DIR', use those directories.  If either or both
     were not given, get the missing values by running `xmkmf' on a
     trivial `Imakefile' and examining the `Makefile' that it produces.
     If that fails (such as if `xmkmf' is not present), look for the
     files in several directories where they often reside.  If either
     method is successful, set the shell variables `x_includes' and
     `x_libraries' to their locations, unless they are in directories
     the compiler searches by default.

     If both methods fail, or the user gave the command line option
     `--without-x', set the shell variable `no_x' to `yes'; otherwise
     set it to the empty string.

 - Macro: AC_PATH_XTRA
     An enhanced version of `AC_PATH_X'.  It adds the C compiler flags
     that X needs to output variable `X_CFLAGS', and the X linker flags
     to `X_LIBS'.  Define `X_DISPLAY_MISSING' if X is not available.

     This macro also checks for special libraries that some systems
     need in order to compile X programs.  It adds any that the system
     needs to output variable `X_EXTRA_LIBS'.  And it checks for
     special X11R6 libraries that need to be linked with before
     `-lX11', and adds any found to the output variable `X_PRE_LIBS'.

Are you saying that Xt is a "special libraries that some
systems need in order to compile X programs" ?  I don't
think that is what the intention is.

To create the macro, they just had to pick an include file
and try to do something with it to see if it exists, and
they should have picked a more general one like X.h or
Xlib.h.

If the package in question needs to check that Xt is
available, it should use a macro for that, and not a
general one that searches for the include and library
paths.


Kurt

Message #30 received at 327655@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thomas Dickey <dickey@radix.net>

To: Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>

Cc: Thomas Dickey <dickey@radix.net>, 327655@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#327655: autoconf: AC_PATH_X* requires libxt-dev

Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 15:03:34 -0400

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 08:42:34PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 01:59:32PM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 07:38:48PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > > Can you elaborate on that?  Break in what way?  It could find the
> > > wrong include path?
> > 
> > As I read the comment, it sounds as if you're thinking that the macro
> > that doesn't check for Xt can replace the one that does.
> 
> I'm sorry, but I really can't follow you ...  Is there a need to
> check that Xt is exists for all packages?

no.  Add a macro that does exactly what you want.
 
> To create the macro, they just had to pick an include file
> and try to do something with it to see if it exists, and
> they should have picked a more general one like X.h or
> Xlib.h.
> 
> If the package in question needs to check that Xt is
> available, it should use a macro for that, and not a
> general one that searches for the include and library
> paths.

Given that the macro's been working as described for about 10 years,
if it's suddenly changed, it'll break things that rely on its assumption
that X11 and Xt are distributed together.

-- 
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #35 received at 327655@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>

To: Thomas Dickey <dickey@radix.net>

Cc: 327655@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#327655: autoconf: AC_PATH_X* requires libxt-dev

Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 21:16:36 +0200

On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 03:03:34PM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> Given that the macro's been working as described for about 10 years,
> if it's suddenly changed, it'll break things that rely on its assumption
> that X11 and Xt are distributed together.

You should never rely on an assumption, sooner or later it will
bite you.  And the time that they're not distributed together has
come.

You should not let old broken behaviour get in the way of
progress.


Kurt

Message #40 received at 327655@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu>

To: Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>

Cc: 327655@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#327655: autoconf: AC_PATH_X* requires libxt-dev

Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 12:43:48 -0700

Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be> writes:

> Various package need a build dependency on libxt-dev because the
> configure script checks for X11/Intrinsic.h which is part of
> libxt-dev but otherwise do not need libxt-dev at all.
>
> See for instance http://bugs.debian.org/233969 for a discussion
> about it, that also has a patch.

The patch I see there is against Xrender, not Autoconf.  It could
be adapted into a patch against Autoconf.  I can think of two
ways to do so: either the existing AC_PATH_X and AC_PATH_XTRA
could be replaced by the "corrected" versions, or the "corrected"
versions could be added in parallel.

If the existing macros were replaced, then this would have the
negative effect that any program that does require Xt would now
successfully configure even though it would fail to compile or
link.  It would also be a confusing divergence from upstream.  I
am not in favor of this solution.

If the existing macros were supplemented with the "corrected"
ones, then it would still be a divergence from upstream but it
would not be as confusing.  Configuration scripts would have to
be modified to use the "corrected" macros.  This seems like a
slightly better solution.

In the end, though, I'm not convinced that this problem really
needs a solution.  Why is it so bad to add "libxt-dev" to
Build-Depends?

> It would be nice if this could be fixed upstream (for 2.60?) if
> it isn't already.

It is not clear to me that it is a bug in Autoconf from upstream
perspective.  Xt is part of X and it seems reasonable to assume
that someone who has Xlib also has Xt.
-- 
Ben Pfaff 
email: blp@cs.stanford.edu
web: http://benpfaff.org

Message #45 received at 327655@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>

To: Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu>

Cc: 327655@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#327655: autoconf: AC_PATH_X* requires libxt-dev

Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 22:26:18 +0200

On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 12:43:48PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> 
> If the existing macros were replaced, then this would have the
> negative effect that any program that does require Xt would now
> successfully configure even though it would fail to compile or
> link.  It would also be a confusing divergence from upstream.  I
> am not in favor of this solution.

I'd rather have this fixed upstream that have this as a Debian
specific fix.  Having this just fixed in Debian really is of no
use.  And asking the Debian maintainer of the packages is the
obvious choise for me to get this to upstream.

> In the end, though, I'm not convinced that this problem really
> needs a solution.  Why is it so bad to add "libxt-dev" to
> Build-Depends?

Package are migrating from build depending on xlibs-dev that
pulls in all xlibs, to only depending on things they need.  And
they always have to add libxt-dev even when they don't use it.



Kurt

Message #50 received at 327655@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thomas Dickey <dickey@radix.net>

To: Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>

Cc: Thomas Dickey <dickey@radix.net>, 327655@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#327655: autoconf: AC_PATH_X* requires libxt-dev

Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 16:27:13 -0400

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 09:16:36PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 03:03:34PM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> > Given that the macro's been working as described for about 10 years,
> > if it's suddenly changed, it'll break things that rely on its assumption
> > that X11 and Xt are distributed together.
> 
> You should never rely on an assumption, sooner or later it will
> bite you.  And the time that they're not distributed together has
> come.
> 
> You should not let old broken behaviour get in the way of
> progress.

hmm - based on your response, I'm unlikely to find anything that you're
doing useful.

bye.

-- 
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #55 received at 327655@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu>

To: Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>

Cc: 327655@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#327655: autoconf: AC_PATH_X* requires libxt-dev

Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 13:35:08 -0700

Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be> writes:

> On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 12:43:48PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>> 
>> If the existing macros were replaced, then this would have the
>> negative effect that any program that does require Xt would now
>> successfully configure even though it would fail to compile or
>> link.  It would also be a confusing divergence from upstream.  I
>> am not in favor of this solution.
>
> I'd rather have this fixed upstream that have this as a Debian
> specific fix.  Having this just fixed in Debian really is of no
> use.  And asking the Debian maintainer of the packages is the
> obvious choise for me to get this to upstream.

Well, I can write up a patch and send it to upstream, but that's
no guarantee it'll be picked up.  It is a backward-incompatible
change.

If that's what you want, I can probably do it sometime this
week.  (I am very busy right now.)
-- 
Ben Pfaff 
email: blp@cs.stanford.edu
web: http://benpfaff.org

Message #60 received at 327655@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Clint Adams <schizo@debian.org>

To: blp@cs.stanford.edu, 327655@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>

Subject: Re: Bug#327655: autoconf: AC_PATH_X* requires libxt-dev

Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 16:40:46 -0400

> In the end, though, I'm not convinced that this problem really
> needs a solution.  Why is it so bad to add "libxt-dev" to
> Build-Depends?

Why would it be correct to force a build-dependency on libxt-dev when
its only purpose is to work around an apparently-broken autoconf test?

Message #65 received at 327655@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>

To: Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu>

Cc: 327655@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#327655: autoconf: AC_PATH_X* requires libxt-dev

Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 22:44:15 +0200

On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 01:35:08PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> 
> Well, I can write up a patch and send it to upstream, but that's
> no guarantee it'll be picked up.  It is a backward-incompatible
> change.
> 
> If that's what you want, I can probably do it sometime this
> week.  (I am very busy right now.)

That is all I'm asking.


Kurt

Message #70 received at 327655@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu>

To: Clint Adams <schizo@debian.org>

Cc: 327655@bugs.debian.org, Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>

Subject: Re: Bug#327655: autoconf: AC_PATH_X* requires libxt-dev

Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 14:05:26 -0700

Clint Adams <schizo@debian.org> writes:

>> In the end, though, I'm not convinced that this problem really
>> needs a solution.  Why is it so bad to add "libxt-dev" to
>> Build-Depends?
>
> Why would it be correct to force a build-dependency on libxt-dev when
> its only purpose is to work around an apparently-broken autoconf test?

The Autoconf test is only broken from the perspective of a
package that does not use Xt.  There is no telling how many
programs that use the test do not use Xt.

Summary: If you want to use the built-in Autoconf test, you need
to Build-Depend on libxt-dev.  If you do not want to Build-Depend
on libxt-dev, then you can use a different Autoconf test (not
built-in) that does not check for Xt.
-- 
Ben Pfaff 
email: blp@cs.stanford.edu
web: http://benpfaff.org

Message #75 received at 327655@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu>

To: Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>

Cc: 327655@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#327655: autoconf: AC_PATH_X* requires libxt-dev

Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 14:05:47 -0700

Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be> writes:

> On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 01:35:08PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>> 
>> Well, I can write up a patch and send it to upstream, but that's
>> no guarantee it'll be picked up.  It is a backward-incompatible
>> change.
>> 
>> If that's what you want, I can probably do it sometime this
>> week.  (I am very busy right now.)
>
> That is all I'm asking.

Then I'll make a note to do so.
-- 
Ben Pfaff 
email: blp@cs.stanford.edu
web: http://benpfaff.org

Message #80 received at 327655@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu>

To: Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>

Cc: 327655@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#327655: autoconf: AC_PATH_X* requires libxt-dev

Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 21:54:10 -0700

Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be> writes:

> On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 01:35:08PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>> 
>> Well, I can write up a patch and send it to upstream, but that's
>> no guarantee it'll be picked up.  It is a backward-incompatible
>> change.
>> 
>> If that's what you want, I can probably do it sometime this
>> week.  (I am very busy right now.)
>
> That is all I'm asking.

I believe that the following patch fixes the problem:

diff -ur tmp/autoconf-2.59a/lib/autoconf/libs.m4 autoconf-2.59a/lib/autoconf/libs.m4
--- tmp/autoconf-2.59a/lib/autoconf/libs.m4	2005-09-14 21:50:55.000000000 -0700
+++ autoconf-2.59a/lib/autoconf/libs.m4	2005-09-14 21:47:42.000000000 -0700
@@ -345,7 +345,7 @@
   else
 dnl If we are called with less than 3 arguments, use the defaults
     m4_ifval([$3], [_AC_PATH_X($@)],
-                   [_AC_PATH_X([Xt],[X11/Intrinsic.h],[XtMalloc (0)])])
+                   [_AC_PATH_X([X11],[X11/Xlib.h],[XrmInitialize ()])])
   fi
   eval "$ac_cv_have_x"
 fi # $with_x != no

A binary package built with this patch is available from:
        http://footstool.stanford.edu/~blp/autoconf_2.59a-3.1_all.deb

Please confirm that this fixes the problem for you and I will
pass it along to upstream.
-- 
"In the PARTIES partition there is a small section called the BEER.
 Prior to turning control over to the PARTIES partition,
 the BIOS must measure the BEER area into PCR[5]."
--TCPA PC Specific Implementation Specification

Message #85 received at 327655@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>

To: Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu>

Cc: 327655@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#327655: autoconf: AC_PATH_X* requires libxt-dev

Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:25:59 +0200

On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 09:54:10PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> 
> I believe that the following patch fixes the problem:

This seems to do exactly what I want, thanks.


Kurt

Message #88 received at 327655-forwarded@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu>

To: bug-autoconf@gnu.org

Cc: 327655-forwarded@bugs.debian.org

Subject: AC_PATH_X checks for Xt, not for X itself

Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 13:04:00 -0700

Debian bug 327655 complains that AC_PATH_X in Autoconf checks for
the presence of Xt development headers and libraries, whereas the
stated purpose of the macro is to check for X headers and
libraries.  In Debian, Xt was recently broken out from the main X
development package, so this check has become a bit of an issue:
some packages now need to build-depend on libxt-dev even though
they don't use it.

For the full history of this bug, you can view the Debian bug
report:
        http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=327655

The following patch fixes the problem.  It does have the
backward-compatibility implication that any program that expected
AC_PATH_X to check for Xt will now only know that X itself is
installed.

--- tmp/autoconf-2.59a/lib/autoconf/libs.m4	2005-09-14 21:50:55.000000000 -0700
+++ autoconf-2.59a/lib/autoconf/libs.m4	2005-09-14 21:47:42.000000000 -0700
@@ -345,7 +345,7 @@
   else
 dnl If we are called with less than 3 arguments, use the defaults
     m4_ifval([$3], [_AC_PATH_X($@)],
-                   [_AC_PATH_X([Xt],[X11/Intrinsic.h],[XtMalloc (0)])])
+                   [_AC_PATH_X([X11],[X11/Xlib.h],[XrmInitialize ()])])
   fi
   eval "$ac_cv_have_x"
 fi # $with_x != no


-- 
"You know, they probably have special dorms for people like us."
--American Pie

Message #89 received at 327655-forwarded@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Paul Eggert <eggert@CS.UCLA.EDU>

To: blp@cs.stanford.edu

Cc: bug-autoconf@gnu.org, 327655-forwarded@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: AC_PATH_X checks for Xt, not for X itself

Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 10:10:46 -0700

Thanks for reporting that bug.  I installed this fix:

2005-09-18  Paul Eggert  <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>

	* lib/autoconf/libs.m4 (_AC_PATH_X_DIRECT): Look for X11/Xlib.h
	and XrmInitialize rather than X11/Intrinsic.h and XtMalloc
	(which belong to Xt, not X itself).  See Debian bug 327655.
	* NEWS: Mention this.

Index: NEWS
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/autoconf/autoconf/NEWS,v
retrieving revision 1.346
diff -p -u -r1.346 NEWS
--- NEWS	23 Aug 2005 08:50:55 -0000	1.346
+++ NEWS	18 Sep 2005 17:09:58 -0000
@@ -35,6 +35,10 @@
 ** AC_C_TYPEOF
   New macro to check for support of 'typeof' syntax a la GNU C.
 
+** AC_PATH_X
+  Now checks for X11/Xlib.h and XrmInitialize (X proper) rather than
+  X11/Intrinsic.h and XtMalloc (Xt).
+
 ** AC_PROG_CC_C89, AC_PROG_CC_C99
   New macros for ISO C99 support.  AC_PROG_CC_C89 and AC_PROG_CC_C99
   check for ANSI C89 and ISO C99 support respectively.
Index: lib/autoconf/libs.m4
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/autoconf/autoconf/lib/autoconf/libs.m4,v
retrieving revision 1.13
diff -p -u -r1.13 libs.m4
--- lib/autoconf/libs.m4	6 Sep 2005 15:34:06 -0000	1.13
+++ lib/autoconf/libs.m4	18 Sep 2005 17:09:58 -0000
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 # This file is part of Autoconf.                       -*- Autoconf -*-
 # Checking for libraries.
 # Copyright (C) 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001,
-# 2002, 2003, 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+# 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
 
 # This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
 # it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
@@ -265,13 +265,13 @@ ac_x_header_dirs='
 /usr/openwin/share/include'
 
 if test "$ac_x_includes" = no; then
-  # Guess where to find include files, by looking for Intrinsic.h.
+  # Guess where to find include files, by looking for Xlib.h.
   # First, try using that file with no special directory specified.
-  AC_PREPROC_IFELSE([AC_LANG_SOURCE([@%:@include <X11/Intrinsic.h>])],
+  AC_PREPROC_IFELSE([AC_LANG_SOURCE([@%:@include <X11/Xlib.h>])],
 [# We can compile using X headers with no special include directory.
 ac_x_includes=],
 [for ac_dir in $ac_x_header_dirs; do
-  if test -r "$ac_dir/X11/Intrinsic.h"; then
+  if test -r "$ac_dir/X11/Xlib.h"; then
     ac_x_includes=$ac_dir
     break
   fi
@@ -284,8 +284,8 @@ if test "$ac_x_libraries" = no; then
   # Don't add to $LIBS permanently.
   ac_save_LIBS=$LIBS
   LIBS="-lXt $LIBS"
-  AC_LINK_IFELSE([AC_LANG_PROGRAM([@%:@include <X11/Intrinsic.h>],
-				  [XtMalloc (0)])],
+  AC_LINK_IFELSE([AC_LANG_PROGRAM([@%:@include <X11/Xlib.h>],
+				  [XrmInitialize (0)])],
 		 [LIBS=$ac_save_LIBS
 # We can link X programs with no special library path.
 ac_x_libraries=],

Message #90 received at 327655-forwarded@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu>

To: Paul Eggert <eggert@CS.UCLA.EDU>

Cc: bug-autoconf@gnu.org, 327655-forwarded@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: AC_PATH_X checks for Xt, not for X itself

Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:07:41 -0700

Paul Eggert <eggert@CS.UCLA.EDU> writes:

> Thanks for reporting that bug.  I installed this fix:
>
> 2005-09-18  Paul Eggert  <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>
>
> 	* lib/autoconf/libs.m4 (_AC_PATH_X_DIRECT): Look for X11/Xlib.h
> 	and XrmInitialize rather than X11/Intrinsic.h and XtMalloc
> 	(which belong to Xt, not X itself).  See Debian bug 327655.

Thanks!  I'll put this fix into the Debian packaging of 2.59, so
we'll probably hear about it if it breaks anything in practice.
-- 
Ben Pfaff 
email: blp@cs.stanford.edu
web: http://benpfaff.org

Message #95 received at 327655-close@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ben Pfaff <pfaffben@debian.org>

To: 327655-close@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Bug#327655: fixed in autoconf 2.59a-4

Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:17:04 -0700

Source: autoconf
Source-Version: 2.59a-4

We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
autoconf, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive:

autoconf_2.59a-4.diff.gz
  to pool/main/a/autoconf/autoconf_2.59a-4.diff.gz
autoconf_2.59a-4.dsc
  to pool/main/a/autoconf/autoconf_2.59a-4.dsc
autoconf_2.59a-4_all.deb
  to pool/main/a/autoconf/autoconf_2.59a-4_all.deb



A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.  If you
have further comments please address them to 327655@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Ben Pfaff <pfaffben@debian.org> (supplier of updated autoconf package)

(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing ftpmaster@debian.org)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Format: 1.7
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 21:29:45 -0700
Source: autoconf
Binary: autoconf
Architecture: source all
Version: 2.59a-4
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Ben Pfaff <pfaffben@debian.org>
Changed-By: Ben Pfaff <pfaffben@debian.org>
Description: 
 autoconf   - automatic configure script builder
Closes: 327655
Changes: 
 autoconf (2.59a-4) unstable; urgency=low
 .
   * AC_PATH_X now checks for X11/Xlib.h and XrmInitialize (X proper)
     rather than X11/Intrinsic.h and XtMalloc (Xt).  Thanks to Kurt Roeckx,
     Thomas Dickey, and Paul Eggert.  Closes: #327655.
 .
   * Update FSF street address in all the street addresses I could find.
 .
   * Update Debian policy version (no changes needed).
Files: 
 b4f2971974a023977ddc302d77e97bc8 882 devel optional autoconf_2.59a-4.dsc
 3d45909b6df087296b0fa627df160dd5 24290 devel optional autoconf_2.59a-4.diff.gz
 ec096eee90cafebe8628a954ba2ec9d2 380952 devel optional autoconf_2.59a-4_all.deb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iQEVAwUBQy+ZFrf2jhx5fmQdAQLz2Qf9FHi1cv+5nfB3lRkYWerAZW5OKEEqXFij
wI3G4methzydzavvXmQutEXaUk8d4S7RkBbzXqazWfEZALncsagJwev9M1sKeyIv
8OveDSrVCGlw8T8FNjUSFZPZ60a/91xxJf5gEr0/N1/TGVlyClIFdi1zjgLPiIv5
qQKW4L+m7Boq7OS97YuSPjjmANYn6i31fhjts9J5xamziN0mP7tGzjAlcdZte7Xy
kdTTcqiZkWWw4NFwDkExwRD/mWJUqwWw5YxOqXjZEbu2wav1Ak5ZCCSgM1CKGq1u
8QyFlJ2Ydy2rRVF1EYPD2iFNklghQYITnlaUdvQBUOClTjk75RXpLQ==
=Zl/k
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.