Environment: $ uname -a SunOS lisbon 5.9 Generic_112233-08 sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-5_10 I'm running configure as follows: $ ./configure \ --prefix=/opt/samba-3.0.0 \ --with-fhs \ --sysconfdir=/etc \ --localstatedir=/var \ --with-privatedir=/etc/samba \ --without-ldap I get the following warning messages: configure: WARNING: net/if.h: present but cannot be compiled configure: WARNING: net/if.h: check for missing prerequisite headers? configure: WARNING: net/if.h: proceeding with the preprocessor's result [...] configure: WARNING: security/pam_modules.h: present but cannot be compiled configure: WARNING: security/pam_modules.h: check for missing prerequisite headers? configure: WARNING: security/pam_modules.h: proceeding with the preprocessor's result [...] configure: WARNING: netinet/ip.h: present but cannot be compiled configure: WARNING: netinet/ip.h: check for missing prerequisite headers? configure: WARNING: netinet/ip.h: proceeding with the preprocessor's result This seems to be the same problem described @ http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-autoconf/2003-08/msg00316.html
Created attachment 167 [details] Tweak source/configure.in Make sure to included proper headers so that headers will compile on Solaris.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 350 ***
Hi. This is exactly the sort of thing I am trying to avoid. We already have the logic for which header files are needed to preprocess other header files - it's in the Samba source code. I think it's a bad idea to have to maintain this information in another place. There's the start of a debate about the issue on samba-technical, but it didn't seem to go anywhere. http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/2003-August/046743.html
What did the autoconf guys have to say? I didn't see anything further on the autoconf list... From looking at the docs for autoconf-2.57, if you use '-' as the 4th argument to AC_CHECK_HEADERS() then it should do the old CPP-only checking.
The autoconf guys didn't respond to my suggestion about keeping the old macro. It looks like you just get the canned response or ignored if you ask a question about it. Thanks for the tip about the fourth argument. It works well but I can't seem to find any reference to it in the documentation, at least under the 'Generic Header Checks' section.
You are correct about not finding it in the documentation proper. I found the reference in the comments of lib/autoconf/headers.m4, around line 82.
database cleanup