[OE-core] [PATCH] bdwgc: support configure on autoconf <2.69

[Richard Purdie]

On Wed, 2013-06-19 at 09:56 -0400, joe at deserted.net wrote:
> From: Joe MacDonald <joe at deserted.net>
> 
> Building bdwgc-native on systems with older versions of autoconf (earlier
> than 2.69) is known to have issues:
> 
> 	https://github.com/ivmai/bdwgc/issues/16
> 
> An option is to simply mask the errors with m4_pattern_allow(...) for each
> of the macros, but rerunning autoreconf produces a functional configure
> script that builds a functional native version of bdwgc.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Joe MacDonald <joe at deserted.net>
> ---
>  meta/recipes-support/bdwgc/bdwgc_7.2d.bb | 9 +++++++++
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> 
> I tripped over this yesterday on one of my older builders.  It happens to still
> be Ubuntu 12.04.2.  I don't know if it's unique to my configuration, but after
> doing some digging around on the web I can't see any obvious indications that
> I'm missing any autotools package and the general consensus seems to be that
> autoreconf is the best option when the failures are relatively beign as they
> are here.
> 
> -J.
> 
> diff --git a/meta/recipes-support/bdwgc/bdwgc_7.2d.bb b/meta/recipes-support/bdwgc/bdwgc_7.2d.bb
> index 46e5257..d8e2de5 100644
> --- a/meta/recipes-support/bdwgc/bdwgc_7.2d.bb
> +++ b/meta/recipes-support/bdwgc/bdwgc_7.2d.bb
> @@ -36,3 +36,12 @@ ARM_INSTRUCTION_SET = "arm"
>  
>  inherit autotools
>  BBCLASSEXTEND = "native nativesdk"
> +
> +do_configure_prepend() {
> +	# Without this, on older installations of autoconf errors crop up during configure:
> +	# | configure.ac:70: error: possibly undefined macro: AC_MSG_ERROR
> +	# |       If this token and others are legitimate, please use m4_pattern_allow.
> +	# |       See the Autoconf documentation.
> +	# | configure.ac:358: error: possibly undefined macro: AS_IF
> +	( cd ${S}; autoreconf -i )
> +}

This is timely since we're seeing this issue on some of the
autobuilders. We should be autoreconfing by default though, any idea why
it doesn't in this case?

Cheers,

Richard