* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 10:41:47PM CET:
> On 6 Mar 2008, at 15:03, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
>> There needs to be a way to output any warnings at the tail end of
>> configure so that at least someone is more likely to see them.
>> Without adequate notification to the user,
Hi Bob,
On 6 Mar 2008, at 15:03, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
There needs to be a way to output any warnings at the tail end of
configure so that at least someone is more likely to see them.
Without adequate notification to the user, the user is likely to try
'make' and then find that libtool do
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
What would be ideal is to check that the compiler exists, is executable,
works (an possibly, when not cross-compiling, test that trivial code
that is compiled with the compiler runs) but not cause an error if the
compiler is broken or does not exist, sim
* Peter O'Gorman wrote on Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 08:57:56PM CET:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >
> > I'm considering doing that (the stop-gap measure).
>
> Your call.
I've applied that now.
> > Yes, and I can conceive just as well a libtool-using package which may
> > optionally use a Java compiler,
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 08:43:15PM CET:
>> On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
>>> I think the test for a working GCJ should be in libtool, and unset GCJ,
>>> avoid adding the tag etc.if it is found to be nonfunctional. We would
>>> have to iss
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
But that should not be Libtool's decision, but the package's.
Libtool already supports a syntax by which the package can specify the
languages that it wants to configure for. I agree that this may not
be expected to cause hard-failure if a language
* Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 08:43:15PM CET:
> On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
>> I think the test for a working GCJ should be in libtool, and unset GCJ,
>> avoid adding the tag etc.if it is found to be nonfunctional. We would
>> have to issue a warning during configure
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
I think the test for a working GCJ should be in libtool, and unset GCJ,
avoid adding the tag etc.if it is found to be nonfunctional. We would
have to issue a warning during configure or something. Does not look to
be quite as easy as this patch though, if
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hello Nelson, Peter,
>
> * Peter O'Gorman wrote on Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 06:18:42AM CET:
>> Nelson H. F. Beebe wrote:
>>
>>> libtool: compile: gcj -g -O2 -c A3.java
>>> gcj: libgcj.spec: No such file or directory
>
>> Your gcj and automake are broken. Do you have a sane
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Then, let's avoid us getting blame for broken gcj installations.
OK to apply this patch to avoid the gcj test when a compile would fail?
Or do you feel tests for working compilers should be done in configure
already?
My feeling is that the sooner a fu
Hello Nelson, Peter,
* Peter O'Gorman wrote on Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 06:18:42AM CET:
> Nelson H. F. Beebe wrote:
>
> > libtool: compile: gcj -g -O2 -c A3.java
> > gcj: libgcj.spec: No such file or directory
> Your gcj and automake are broken. Do you have a sane toolchain on any of
> your system
11 matches
Mail list logo
