Re: autoconf 2.68 in branch

2010-12-29 Thread Enrico Forestieri
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 04:21:49PM +0100, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: Enrico Forestieri wrote: Jürgen, may I apply the attached patch to allow autoconf 2.68? The change to libtool.m4 simply avoids the innocuous (in our case) warnings which are now issued by AC_LINK_IFELSE if the first

Re: autoconf 2.68 in branch

2010-12-29 Thread Jürgen Spitzmüller
Enrico Forestieri wrote: Please wait a bit until branch is open again (I'm waiting unil we have at least one win32 installer). ping go ahead. Jürgen

Re: autoconf 2.68 in branch

2010-12-29 Thread Enrico Forestieri
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 04:21:49PM +0100, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > Enrico Forestieri wrote: > > > Jürgen, may I apply the attached patch to allow autoconf 2.68? > > > > The change to libtool.m4 simply avoids the innocuous (in our case) > > warnings which are now issued by AC_LINK_IFELSE if

Re: autoconf 2.68 in branch

2010-12-29 Thread Jürgen Spitzmüller
Enrico Forestieri wrote: > > Please wait a bit until branch is open again (I'm waiting unil we have > > at least one win32 installer). > > ping go ahead. Jürgen

Re: autoconf 2.68 in branch

2010-11-19 Thread Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
Le 18 nov. 10 à 15:22, Enrico Forestieri a écrit : It was much better. Less code to change and less prone to errors. Good to know. JMarc

Re: autoconf 2.68 in branch

2010-11-19 Thread Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
Le 18 nov. 10 à 15:22, Enrico Forestieri a écrit : It was much better. Less code to change and less prone to errors. Good to know. JMarc

Re: autoconf 2.68 in branch

2010-11-18 Thread Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
Le 17/11/2010 23:57, Enrico Forestieri a écrit : But since probably nobody uses 2.66, you can do as you prefer :) As you are the autoconf master, I'll surely do as you suggest :) :) Anyway, now that I have your attention, what about the newline-in-math patch which is sitting in the pipe?

Re: autoconf 2.68 in branch

2010-11-18 Thread Enrico Forestieri
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 10:10:45AM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 17/11/2010 23:57, Enrico Forestieri a écrit : Anyway, now that I have your attention, what about the newline-in-math patch which is sitting in the pipe? For your convenience, I attach here the last version. I tried to

Re: autoconf 2.68 in branch

2010-11-18 Thread Enrico Forestieri
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 10:28:55AM +0100, Enrico Forestieri wrote: On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 10:10:45AM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Nevertheless, the patch can go in as it is. Let's see how much work would be following the breakLine() approach. It was much better. Less code to change

Re: autoconf 2.68 in branch

2010-11-18 Thread Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
Le 17/11/2010 23:57, Enrico Forestieri a écrit : But since probably nobody uses 2.66, you can do as you prefer :) As you are the autoconf master, I'll surely do as you suggest :) :) Anyway, now that I have your attention, what about the newline-in-math patch which is sitting in the pipe?

Re: autoconf 2.68 in branch

2010-11-18 Thread Enrico Forestieri
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 10:10:45AM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Le 17/11/2010 23:57, Enrico Forestieri a écrit : > >Anyway, now that I have your attention, what about the newline-in-math > >patch which is sitting in the pipe? For your convenience, I attach here > >the last version. I tried

Re: autoconf 2.68 in branch

2010-11-18 Thread Enrico Forestieri
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 10:28:55AM +0100, Enrico Forestieri wrote: > On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 10:10:45AM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > > Nevertheless, the patch can go in as it is. > > Let's see how much work would be following the breakLine() approach. It was much better. Less code to

autoconf 2.68 in branch

2010-11-17 Thread Enrico Forestieri
Jürgen, may I apply the attached patch to allow autoconf 2.68? The change to libtool.m4 simply avoids the innocuous (in our case) warnings which are now issued by AC_LINK_IFELSE if the first argument is not conforming. See http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf/2010-09/msg00069.html I tested

Re: autoconf 2.68 in branch

2010-11-17 Thread Kornel
Am Mittwoch, 17. November 2010 schrieb Enrico Forestieri: Jürgen, may I apply the attached patch to allow autoconf 2.68? The change to libtool.m4 simply avoids the innocuous (in our case) warnings which are now issued by AC_LINK_IFELSE if the first argument is not conforming. See

Re: autoconf 2.68 in branch

2010-11-17 Thread Enrico Forestieri
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 02:17:55PM +0100, Kornel wrote: Am Mittwoch, 17. November 2010 schrieb Enrico Forestieri: Jürgen, may I apply the attached patch to allow autoconf 2.68? The change to libtool.m4 simply avoids the innocuous (in our case) warnings which are now issued by

Re: autoconf 2.68 in branch

2010-11-17 Thread Jürgen Spitzmüller
Enrico Forestieri wrote: Jürgen, may I apply the attached patch to allow autoconf 2.68? The change to libtool.m4 simply avoids the innocuous (in our case) warnings which are now issued by AC_LINK_IFELSE if the first argument is not conforming. See

Re: autoconf 2.68 in branch

2010-11-17 Thread Kornel
Am Mittwoch, 17. November 2010 schrieb Enrico Forestieri: On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 02:17:55PM +0100, Kornel wrote: Am Mittwoch, 17. November 2010 schrieb Enrico Forestieri: Jürgen, may I apply the attached patch to allow autoconf 2.68? The change to libtool.m4 simply avoids the

Re: autoconf 2.68 in branch

2010-11-17 Thread Enrico Forestieri
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 04:48:14PM +0100, Kornel wrote: Am Mittwoch, 17. November 2010 schrieb Enrico Forestieri: On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 02:17:55PM +0100, Kornel wrote: Am Mittwoch, 17. November 2010 schrieb Enrico Forestieri: Jürgen, may I apply the attached patch to allow autoconf

Re: autoconf 2.68 in branch

2010-11-17 Thread Enrico Forestieri
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 04:21:49PM +0100, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: Enrico Forestieri wrote: Jürgen, may I apply the attached patch to allow autoconf 2.68? The change to libtool.m4 simply avoids the innocuous (in our case) warnings which are now issued by AC_LINK_IFELSE if the first

Re: autoconf 2.68 in branch

2010-11-17 Thread Stephan Witt
Am 17.11.2010 um 18:40 schrieb Enrico Forestieri: On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 04:21:49PM +0100, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: Enrico Forestieri wrote: Jürgen, may I apply the attached patch to allow autoconf 2.68? The change to libtool.m4 simply avoids the innocuous (in our case) warnings which

Re: autoconf 2.68 in branch

2010-11-17 Thread Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
Le 17/11/2010 18:33, Enrico Forestieri a écrit : Well, I remember having used 2.66 without problems but your sharp assertion made me test it again. So, I reinstalled 2.66 and tried it on both branch and trunk: no problem whatsoever. I was simply assuming that nobody had actually tried 2.66 and

Re: autoconf 2.68 in branch

2010-11-17 Thread Enrico Forestieri
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:15:42PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 17/11/2010 18:33, Enrico Forestieri a écrit : Well, I remember having used 2.66 without problems but your sharp assertion made me test it again. So, I reinstalled 2.66 and tried it on both branch and trunk: no problem

Re: autoconf 2.68 in branch

2010-11-17 Thread Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
Le 17/11/2010 23:32, Enrico Forestieri a écrit : I also don't see any value in forbidding its usage, given that LyX seems not to be affected by those regressions. Since it can break AC_CHECK_SIZEOF, we have to be pretty sure that this is never called on any platform. But since probably

Re: autoconf 2.68 in branch

2010-11-17 Thread Enrico Forestieri
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:45:02PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 17/11/2010 23:32, Enrico Forestieri a écrit : I also don't see any value in forbidding its usage, given that LyX seems not to be affected by those regressions. Since it can break AC_CHECK_SIZEOF, we have to be pretty

autoconf 2.68 in branch

2010-11-17 Thread Enrico Forestieri
Jürgen, may I apply the attached patch to allow autoconf 2.68? The change to libtool.m4 simply avoids the innocuous (in our case) warnings which are now issued by AC_LINK_IFELSE if the first argument is not conforming. See http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf/2010-09/msg00069.html I tested

Re: autoconf 2.68 in branch

2010-11-17 Thread Kornel
Am Mittwoch, 17. November 2010 schrieb Enrico Forestieri: > Jürgen, may I apply the attached patch to allow autoconf 2.68? > > The change to libtool.m4 simply avoids the innocuous (in our case) > warnings which are now issued by AC_LINK_IFELSE if the first argument > is not conforming. > See

Re: autoconf 2.68 in branch

2010-11-17 Thread Enrico Forestieri
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 02:17:55PM +0100, Kornel wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 17. November 2010 schrieb Enrico Forestieri: > > Jürgen, may I apply the attached patch to allow autoconf 2.68? > > > > The change to libtool.m4 simply avoids the innocuous (in our case) > > warnings which are now issued by

Re: autoconf 2.68 in branch

2010-11-17 Thread Jürgen Spitzmüller
Enrico Forestieri wrote: > Jürgen, may I apply the attached patch to allow autoconf 2.68? > > The change to libtool.m4 simply avoids the innocuous (in our case) > warnings which are now issued by AC_LINK_IFELSE if the first argument > is not conforming. > See

Re: autoconf 2.68 in branch

2010-11-17 Thread Kornel
Am Mittwoch, 17. November 2010 schrieb Enrico Forestieri: > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 02:17:55PM +0100, Kornel wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, 17. November 2010 schrieb Enrico Forestieri: > > > Jürgen, may I apply the attached patch to allow autoconf 2.68? > > > > > > The change to libtool.m4 simply avoids

Re: autoconf 2.68 in branch

2010-11-17 Thread Enrico Forestieri
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 04:48:14PM +0100, Kornel wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 17. November 2010 schrieb Enrico Forestieri: > > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 02:17:55PM +0100, Kornel wrote: > > > Am Mittwoch, 17. November 2010 schrieb Enrico Forestieri: > > > > Jürgen, may I apply the attached patch to allow

Re: autoconf 2.68 in branch

2010-11-17 Thread Enrico Forestieri
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 04:21:49PM +0100, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > Enrico Forestieri wrote: > > > Jürgen, may I apply the attached patch to allow autoconf 2.68? > > > > The change to libtool.m4 simply avoids the innocuous (in our case) > > warnings which are now issued by AC_LINK_IFELSE if

Re: autoconf 2.68 in branch

2010-11-17 Thread Stephan Witt
Am 17.11.2010 um 18:40 schrieb Enrico Forestieri: > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 04:21:49PM +0100, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: >> Enrico Forestieri wrote: >> >>> Jürgen, may I apply the attached patch to allow autoconf 2.68? >>> >>> The change to libtool.m4 simply avoids the innocuous (in our case)

Re: autoconf 2.68 in branch

2010-11-17 Thread Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
Le 17/11/2010 18:33, Enrico Forestieri a écrit : Well, I remember having used 2.66 without problems but your sharp assertion made me test it again. So, I reinstalled 2.66 and tried it on both branch and trunk: no problem whatsoever. I was simply assuming that nobody had actually tried 2.66 and

Re: autoconf 2.68 in branch

2010-11-17 Thread Enrico Forestieri
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:15:42PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Le 17/11/2010 18:33, Enrico Forestieri a écrit : > >Well, I remember having used 2.66 without problems but your sharp > >assertion made me test it again. So, I reinstalled 2.66 and tried > >it on both branch and trunk: no

Re: autoconf 2.68 in branch

2010-11-17 Thread Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
Le 17/11/2010 23:32, Enrico Forestieri a écrit : I also don't see any value in forbidding its usage, given that LyX seems not to be affected by those regressions. Since it can break AC_CHECK_SIZEOF, we have to be pretty sure that this is never called on any platform. But since probably

Re: autoconf 2.68 in branch

2010-11-17 Thread Enrico Forestieri
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:45:02PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Le 17/11/2010 23:32, Enrico Forestieri a écrit : > >I also don't see any value in forbidding its usage, given that LyX seems > >not to be affected by those regressions. > > Since it can break AC_CHECK_SIZEOF, we have to be