configure output seems confusing in util-linux-2.32

configure output seems confusing in util-linux-2.32

[L A Walsh]

Looked at configure help, saw:

Optional packages:
...
  --with-systemd          build with support for systemd

to me, this means systemd is optional and may be
included using a 'with'.

Conversely, one could use:
  --without-systemd

which, in this configure, should have no effect (default
is 'without'), right?

I included the --without-systemd flag (as a future protection
should the default change), but configure's output
had: (relative numbers added for ref):

       1. checking for syscall sched_getaffinity... SYS_sched_getaffinity
       2. checking for syscall sched_setattr... SYS_sched_setattr
       3. Package systemd was not found in the pkg-config search path.
       4. Perhaps you should add the directory containing `systemd.pc'
       5. to the PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable
       6. No package 'systemd' found
       7. checking that generated files are newer than configure... done


Lines 3-6 suggest that I should add support for systemd so it
can be built.  Why does it even test for systemd when I
specified '--without-systemd'?

FWIW, configure finished but I haven't tried to build it yet.

Re: configure output seems confusing in util-linux-2.32

[Bruce Dubbs]

On 05/01/2018 07:39 PM, L A Walsh wrote:
> Looked at configure help, saw:
> 
> Optional packages:
> ...
>   --with-systemd          build with support for systemd
> 
> to me, this means systemd is optional and may be
> included using a 'with'.
> 
> Conversely, one could use:
>   --without-systemd

Works for me,  but you also need to use --without-systemdsystemunitdir

   -- Bruce

Re: configure output seems confusing in util-linux-2.32

[L A Walsh]

Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> On 05/01/2018 07:39 PM, L A Walsh wrote:
>   
>> Looked at configure help, saw:
>> Optional packages:
>> ...
>>   --with-systemd          build with support for systemd
>> to me, this means systemd is optional and may be
>> included using a 'with'.
>> Conversely, one could use:
>>   --without-systemd
>>     
>
> Works for me,  but you also need to use --without-systemdsystemunitdir
>   
---
    I see.
    That's a workaround to suppress the message.  Even without
the '--without-systemdsystemunitdir', systemd appears to be
disabled.  Under the summary of options, it had:

  Bash completions:  /usr/share/bash-completion
  Systemd support:   no
  Btrfs support:     yes
  Wide-char support: yes

    It seems like it is more confusing than
an actual problem.  Though, IMO, "--without-systemd"
should disable any processing for the systemd unit dir as well,
no?  And going with standard meanings, if the switch to toggle
default behavior is the one listed in "configure --help", wouldn't
the default have been --without-systemdsystemunitdir (boy that's
a mouthful of a switch name)?

    AFAIK, this issue is more along the lines of dotting an 'i'
or crossing a 't', but it's still a bit odd...

-l

Re: configure output seems confusing in util-linux-2.32

[Karel Zak]

On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 08:33:50PM -0700, L A Walsh wrote:
>    That's a workaround to suppress the message.  Even without
> the '--without-systemdsystemunitdir', systemd appears to be
> disabled.  Under the summary of options, it had:
> 
>  Bash completions:  /usr/share/bash-completion
>  Systemd support:   no
>  Btrfs support:     yes
>  Wide-char support: yes
> 
>    It seems like it is more confusing than
> an actual problem.  Though, IMO, "--without-systemd"
> should disable any processing for the systemd unit dir as well,
> no? 

Fixed by commits:
https://github.com/karelzak/util-linux/commit/7a95313c31dcf95002dfb1d6e4fd8ed77c2adaf1

> And going with standard meanings, if the switch to toggle
> default behavior is the one listed in "configure --help", wouldn't
> the default have been --without-systemdsystemunitdir (boy that's
> a mouthful of a switch name)?

and --with and --without mess is fixed by commit:
https://github.com/karelzak/util-linux/commit/95a89bd3131cbce47055b5f1c15fb8c82a945502

Thanks for your report!

    Karel

-- 
 Karel Zak  <kzak@redhat.com>
 http://karelzak.blogspot.com