Re: [PATCH v2.5 1/5] libxenguest: support zstd compressed kernels

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 25.01.2021 18:30, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [PATCH v2.5 1/5] libxenguest: support zstd 
> compressed kernels"):
>> On 25.01.2021 17:17, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> I think we had concluded not to print a warning ?
>>
>> Yes. Even in the projected new form of using the construct I
>> don't intend to change the description's wording, as the
>> intended use of [true] still looks like that can't be intended
>> usage. IOW my remark extended beyond the warning; I'm sorry if
>> this did end up confusing because you were referring to just
>> the warning.
> 
> I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean.  In particular, what you
> mean by "the intended use of [true] still looks like that can't be
> intended usage".
> 
>   the intended {by whom for what puropose?} use of [true] still looks
>   like that {what?} can't be intended {by whom?} usage
> 
> I have the feeling that I have totally failed to grasp your mental
> model, which naturally underlies your comments.
> 
> Do you mean that with "true" for the 4th argument, the printed output
> is not correct, in the failure case ?  Maybe it needs a call to AC_MSG
> or something (but AIUI most of these PKG_* macros ought to do that for
> us).  I'm just guessing at your meaing here...

Well, I'm afraid I'm ending up confusing you because I'm confused
about the possible intentions here. My initial attempt to avoid
configure failing was to specify [] as the 4th argument. This, to
me, would have felt the half-way natural indication that I don't
mean anything to be done in the failure case, neither autoconf's
default nor anything else. [true], otoh, already feels like a
workaround for some shortcoming.

Anyway - I guess we should continue from v3, which I hope to post
later this morning.

Jan