Hi Eric, * Eric Blake wrote on Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 12:55:35PM CET: > According to Ralf Wildenhues on 3/25/2006 4:12 AM: > > > > This sucks. I sent this three days ago, and it has still has not > > appeared on the list. This develops to be a real problem for > > communication. :-( > > Agreed. The list response seems to be faster lately,
Well, ATM the problems are different: either the mail goes through right away, or it simply vanishes. I am collecting some Message-IDs right now to send to the list admins. There must be something wrong if I send 3 mails to the same list within 10 minutes, the first and third appear after 30 seconds, the second does not appear for more than 3 days. :-( > but I still wish > lists.gnu.org would do the same instant web-archiving given to lists > hosted on sourceware.org (such as gcc or cygwin). Use gmane.org for web searching. I wish somebody would take the gmane code and make it easily usable, and then I wish lists.gnu.org would just use that for archiving (and spam weeding, for example). > > I have taken liberty to just apply the patch for now. Review would > > still be nice.. > > > >> * bootstrap: Enable `WORKING_LIBOBJ_SUPPORT' if we detect > >> Autoconf-2.60+ and Automake-1.10+, or CVS versions. > > Looks right to me this time, and I think it was okay that you applied it. Thanks! > However, do we also need a separate patch to README-alpha stating that > the use of CVS autoconf/automake only works with a checkout newer than > <insert date here>, and also mentioning that stable autoconf 2.59 and > automake 1.9 are supposed to also be usable (albeit potentially slower)? No, I do assume that users of CVS versions keep more-or-less up to date (and the autoconf/automake changes have been applied several months ago). This isn't exactly a new assumption, it happens rather often in the autotools. After all, you are expected to read the mailing lists when using the CVS versions. Cheers, Ralf
