Hi Paul, everyone,
* Paul Eggert wrote on Mon, May 01, 2006 at 07:13:27AM CEST:
Ralf Wildenhues [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is it worthwhile to have
make installcheck
do the right thing in the presence of
configure --program-transform-name=...
post-2.60, or even before that?
Hello Alexandre, ;-)
For your convenience, I have compiled a list of pending bugfix patches
against Automake again. The ones listed in this message affect Autoconf
as well, are thus somewhat important for its next release. It would be
nice to get some kind of feedback on them soonish (where,
RW == Ralf Wildenhues [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
RW Hello Alexandre, ;-)
RW For your convenience, I have compiled a list of pending bugfix patches
RW against Automake again. The ones listed in this message affect Autoconf
RW as well, are thus somewhat important for its next release. It
Here's another round-up of issues; not including patches with stuff we
get from Automake, or have already agreed on to postpone, or stuff I
have forgotten about now (pointers appreciated).
- stdbool issue (Bruno)
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-autoconf/2006-05/msg00027.html
Needs review.
Looks like you forgot quotes. Try
$ perl 'system(echo foo | /bin/m4)'
Thanks Eric
$ perl -e 'system(echo foo | /bin/m4)'
foo
$
I take it the test results are basically OK and the paket can be used as is.
As Interix is based on BSD it would be interesting to see how it compares to
other BSD
Hi Jerker,
* Jerker Bäck wrote on Tue, May 09, 2006 at 01:24:54PM CEST:
I take it the test results are basically OK and the paket can be used as is.
As Interix is based on BSD it would be interesting to see how it compares to
other BSD systems.
Yes. We've had at least one testsuite pass on
IMVHO we can ignore failures that are obviously due to system-specific
bugs in Interix tools, unless someone can provide us with a good analysis,
enabling a decent workaround.
I've posted the failed results in the /tools forum at Interop Systems
Hopefully - eventually - a good analysis can
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
As promised here,
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/m4-patches/2006-05/msg5.html, I
noticed that m4 bootstrap invokes libtoolize --ltdl prior to autoreconf,
which reinvokes libtoolize without --ltdl. This seems like a bit of a
waste of time, but
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Eric, autotoolers:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 06:04:23 -0600 Eric Blake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As promised here,
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/m4-patches/2006-05/msg5.html, I
noticed that m4 bootstrap invokes libtoolize --ltdl prior to
Hi Eric,
* Eric Blake wrote on Tue, May 09, 2006 at 02:04:23PM CEST:
As promised here,
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/m4-patches/2006-05/msg5.html, I
noticed that m4 bootstrap invokes libtoolize --ltdl prior to autoreconf,
which reinvokes libtoolize without --ltdl. This seems like a
Autoconf 2.50 was a major change, with a long development cycle,
that had plenty of incompatibility with older releases, so that
when I packaged it for Debian I kept a compatibility package
around for Autoconf 2.13. This seems to be what other distros
and operating systems did as well.
Autoconf
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 05:26:12PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
Autoconf 2.50 was a major change, with a long development cycle,
that had plenty of incompatibility with older releases, so that
when I packaged it for Debian I kept a compatibility package
around for Autoconf 2.13. This seems to be
Noah Misch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 05:26:12PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
[2.59 - 2.60 transition]
Does anyone have input on whether these changes are cumulatively
important enough to break much software?
We tried to preserve compatibility fairly well. If a change
Ben Pfaff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One option open to me is to package and upload a 2.59 pre-release
Excuse me, I of course meant a 2.60 pre-release here.
to Debian unstable. I imagine that this would lead to more
widespread testing of the pre-release, which might work to catch
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Ben Pfaff on 5/9/2006 8:49 PM:
One option open to me is to package and upload a 2.59 pre-release
to Debian unstable. I imagine that this would lead to more
widespread testing of the pre-release, which might work to catch
Ben Pfaff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Any comments on whether this is a good idea?
It's a good idea, yes. You could use 2.59c. Another possibility is
that we could generate another prerelease; it might be a good idea to
do one more before 2.60 comes out.
Hi Ben,
* Ben Pfaff wrote on Wed, May 10, 2006 at 02:26:12AM CEST:
Autoconf 2.60 has had a long development cycle too, but I'm
hoping that it is not sufficiently different from 2.59 to make it
necessary to package it separately from 2.59. I'm basing this
mostly on the NEWS, which primarily
* Paul Eggert wrote on Wed, May 10, 2006 at 07:02:11AM CEST:
Ben Pfaff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Any comments on whether this is a good idea?
It's a good idea, yes. You could use 2.59c. Another possibility is
that we could generate another prerelease; it might be a good idea to
do one
18 matches
Mail list logo
