Hello Ralf,
* Ralf Hemmecke wrote on Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:30:21PM CET:
I'm just reading the current FAQ under
1.3 Where can I get the latest versions of these tools?
http://www.gnu.org/software/automake/faq/autotools-faq.html#Where-can-I-get-the-latest-versions-of-these-tools_003f
Hello,
* Miles Bader wrote on Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 05:17:29AM CET:
Ralf Hemmecke writes:
Sure. But it is also relevant if one developer adds a macro which is
only available in some recent version of automake, say. Another
developer might not yet have that automake version.
It doesn't
Sure. But it is also relevant if one developer adds a macro which is
only available in some recent version of automake, say. Another
developer might not yet have that automake version.
It doesn't really seem any worse than _any_ potential tool
incompatibility problem -- compiler version,
On 02/23/2011 05:02 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
The question libtool reorders link fags seems to have a
spelling error in the last word. It's not obvious to me what
word is meant.
flags
--
Eric Blake ebl...@redhat.com+1-801-349-2682
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
* Eric Blake wrote on Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 01:04:31AM CET:
On 02/23/2011 05:02 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
The question libtool reorders link fags seems to have a
spelling error in the last word. It's not obvious to me what
word is meant.
flags
Fixed now, thanks for the report.
Ralf
Ralf Hemmecke hemme...@gmail.com writes:
Is there actually a good reason, why the autotools are distributed as
separate packages (autoconf, automake, libtool, m4)? (Maybe even
pkg-config, but I still don't yet know exactly whether it is good for
me.)
Hmm, why not? Isn't it good general
I'm just reading the current FAQ under
1.3 Where can I get the latest versions of these tools?
http://www.gnu.org/software/automake/faq/autotools-faq.html#Where-can-I-get-the-latest-versions-of-these-tools_003f
Wouldn't it be useful to give a little script that installs know-good
combinations
http://www.gnu.org/software/automake/faq/autotools-faq.html#How-do-I-add-a-question-to-this-FAQ_003f
Do you think, it would be a good idea to just open up a git repo (on
github.com, for example) and put the autotools-faq.texi file there?
Or is there already a git repo for this?
Ralf
On 02/22/2011 11:35 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 22:30 +0100, Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
That Linux distributions usually come with a good set of autotools is
irrelevant, since in my understanding all developers of *one* project
should work with the *same* autotools versions. Of
On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 22:30 +0100, Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
That Linux distributions usually come with a good set of autotools is
irrelevant, since in my understanding all developers of *one* project
should work with the *same* autotools versions. Of course, the project
might also compile
Ralf Hemmecke hemme...@gmail.com writes:
Sure. But it is also relevant if one developer adds a macro which is
only available in some recent version of automake, say. Another
developer might not yet have that automake version.
It doesn't really seem any worse than _any_ potential tool
* Ralf Hemmecke wrote on Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:41:20PM CET:
http://www.gnu.org/software/automake/faq/autotools-faq.html#How-do-I-add-a-question-to-this-FAQ_003f
Do you think, it would be a good idea to just open up a git repo (on
github.com, for example) and put the autotools-faq.texi file
On 02/13/2011 11:12 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
[ Cross post; Reply-To and Mail-Followup-To set. Please followup to
the automake list only, to avoid excessive spammage. Thank you. ]
Hello everyone,
I've been advertising debbugs before, I think we should be a good
example. So, two
Hi Eric,
* Eric Blake wrote on Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 03:24:01PM CET:
On 02/13/2011 11:12 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
1) Autoconf and Libtool should also use debbugs.
bug-automake has switched a few months ago, and I find it helpful to
avoid losing reports. Given that we never have enough
However, my biggest concern is that right now, I filter both
autoconf and automake messages into the same mail folder, but
debbugs anonymizes which list a bug is being reported against
(that is, the To: is rewritten as ###@debbugs.gnu.org, so there is
no longer any mention of 'automake'
Glenn Morris wrote (on Mon, 21 Feb 2011 at 16:08 -0500):
Maybe you could turn on the Mailman subject_prefix option for your
lists?
Actually, that might interfere with how debbugs recognizes replies to
existing bug reports that get sent to eg bug-automake rather than
###@debbugs. It might
Hello everyone,
* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 07:12:02PM CET:
2) Autotools should have a FAQ document.
I've done a brain dump now, here's a rough initial version:
http://www.gnu.org/software/automake/faq/autotools-faq.html and
Hi Russell,
* Russell Shaw wrote on Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:00:14AM CET:
I'd ask more about how the internals of ./configure and autoconf works.
Can you formulate more specific questions?
And questions on how to make bison get handled without being forced to
mimic standard yacc.
I've added
On 20/02/11 06:10, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Hi Russell,
* Russell Shaw wrote on Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:00:14AM CET:
I'd ask more about how the internals of ./configure and autoconf works.
Can you formulate more specific questions?
And questions on how to make bison get handled without being
On 14/02/11 05:12, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
[ Cross post; Reply-To and Mail-Followup-To set. Please followup to
the automake list only, to avoid excessive spammage. Thank you. ]
Hello everyone,
I've been advertising debbugs before, I think we should be a good
example. So, two proposals:
[ Cross post; Reply-To and Mail-Followup-To set. Please followup to
the automake list only, to avoid excessive spammage. Thank you. ]
Hello everyone,
I've been advertising debbugs before, I think we should be a good
example. So, two proposals:
1) Autoconf and Libtool should also use
21 matches
Mail list logo
