Your patches were applied to branches/2.2 but I had to work to let them
merge with the current organization of Makefile.am files
Whenever possible it would be good if patches could be generated diffing
using svn from the development branch they are meant for.
I also patched trunk, but I haven't committed it yet. It's going to take
a bit longer as I'm trying to write test scripts for the new Rivet
channel policy: I wish I had a stash function similar to git's. May I
ask if anyone wants to explore how we can mirror Rivet on github like
other projects already do?
-- Massimo
On 01/04/2015 04:35 AM, Poor Yorick wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2015 at 01:28:46AM +0100, Massimo Manghi wrote:
>> I integrated your patch in branches/2.2. I will commit it soon. Just a
>> question: what is the benefit for testing the utility program with
>>
>> if "${with_apu_config}" --version; then
>>
>> instead
>>
>> [if test -x "${with_apu_config}"; then
>>
>> I'm just curious to understand what's the issue they are meant to address.
>>
>> -- Massimo
>
> I wanted to be able to specify simply the name of apr-1-config, rather than a
> full path to it, e.g.
>
> --with-apu-confg=apu-1-config-1.5.4
>
> and have that pass muster as long as such a command existed and responded
> appropriately. It wouldn't be too much more work to specify something like
>
> --with-apu-config="$(which ap-1-config-1.5.4)"
>
> but I think its nice for the configure script to allow the program
> specification either as the name of the executable or the path of the
> executable. With programs that require specification of a tclsh interpreter,
> for example, it's nice to be able to say
>
> --with-tclsh=myfunkytclsh
>
> rather than
>
> --with-tclsh=/path/to/myfunkytclsh
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
