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

Sat, 21 Oct 2000 10:11:40 -0500
Larry Rosenman <ler@lerctr.org>
Style question
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/


Sat, 21 Oct 2000 18:58:10 +0200 (CEST)
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Re: Style question
* 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

Sat, 21 Oct 2000 13:12:43 -0500
Larry Rosenman <ler@lerctr.org>
Re: Style question
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/


Sat, 21 Oct 2000 20:28:54 +0200 (CEST)
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Re: Style question
* 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

Sat, 21 Oct 2000 13:29:09 -0500
Larry Rosenman <ler@lerctr.org>
Re: Style question