[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Jon Steinhart wrote: >>> But the patched tarball has problems building on machines that do not >>> have GNU m4 installed. > >>OK, so it sounds like I should wait on a release until this gets resolved. > >Feh. I'll have a look at this. (I've also realised that I have access >to the sourceforge compile farm, so I'll have a go at testing that we >can compile OK on some other platforms too).
OK, I've done some testing and the results are: Successful compile: Linux/x86 Debian stable (sarge) Linux/x86 Fedora FC2 Solaris/SPARC Linux/AMD64 NetBSD (I didn't actually test the binaries, just that they could be built.) Failure: OpenBSD/x86: I tried the sourceforge compile farm OpenBSD box, and it built OK except that it screwed up on the makefile in the man/ directory by trying to build manpages before man.sed (despite the dependency rule directing otherwise). It's not a simple GNU-makeism (because NetBSD works fine). So I propose to ignore this as a bug in that make unless somebody submits a patch and rationale. I think the problems Igor was having are because the makefile rules for rerunning autoconf were kicking in (perhaps a clock skew problem between the machine he ran autoconf on and the one he ran make on?). Anyway, GNU autoconf requires GNU m4 (no avoiding that) but a proper release tarball including a configure script should have no problems. So I think we could go ahead and roll out a point release. -- PMM _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
