On 1/17/2009 7:54 AM, m. allan noah wrote: > On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Chris Bagwell<chris at cnpbagwell.com> > wrote: > >> That is probably the problem now that you mention it... I just looked at >> tracker and their is a patch that seems incomplete. >> >> I could probably get it working but I have an issue to resolve first. I'm >> running a newer version of autoconf (2.63) then current CVS files seem to be >> based on. Any issues with me submitting configure updates from that version >> of autoconf? See my other email as well on this. >> > > sure, let it rip. but now you see why we keep all that stuff in cvs- > don't leave it up to me to generate it the day before a release and > hope it works for everyone :) > Yes, that would be crazy. Based on this response and Julien's, I'm getting ready to submit initial automake support for top level makefile. This will give a new target called "distcheck" which will test creating a package.tar.gz file and compile, install, uninstall in stressful ways. For people modifying configure or Makefiles, its a great target to require them to get working before acceptting the patches.
Chris > allan >
