* Harald Dunkel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Hash: SHA1 > > Package: automake1.9 > Version: 1.9.4-1 > > Hi folks, > > aclocal of automake1.[89] produces some ugly warning messages: > > /usr/share/aclocal/vorbis.m4:9: warning: underquoted definition of > XIPH_PATH_VORBIS > ~ run info '(automake)Extending aclocal' > ~ or see http://sources.redhat.com/automake/automake.html#Extending-aclocal > /usr/share/aclocal/pkg.m4:5: warning: underquoted definition of > PKG_CHECK_MODULES > /usr/share/aclocal/ogg.m4:8: warning: underquoted definition of > XIPH_PATH_OGG > /usr/share/aclocal/lirc.m4:15: warning: underquoted definition of > AC_PATH_LIRC > /usr/share/aclocal/gtk.m4:7: warning: underquoted definition of AM_PATH_GTK > /usr/share/aclocal/glib.m4:8: warning: underquoted definition of > AM_PATH_GLIB > /usr/share/aclocal/aalib.m4:12: warning: underquoted definition of > AM_PATH_AALIB > > > If I install the official automake > > ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/automake/automake-1.9.4.tar.bz2 > > in /usr/local, then there is no such problem. automake1.7 > does not complain, either.
automake1.7 may not complain, but I don't believe that the upstream source does not. There are basically no differences between my deb and upstream source. Check again. > Obviously it is not reasonable to file a bug against each > package dropping a file in /usr/share/aclocal. Maybe there > is a more general solution? This is exactly the right solution. Just as autoconf got more strict with it's quoting, so is automake. I would file a minor severity bug against all those packages, with patches attached hopefully. -- Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
