On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Bruno Haible wrote:
Bob Proulx wrote:
I would follow that clue and regenerate everything.
autoreconf
./configure
Doesn't work:
$ pwd
/build/libidn-0.6.14
$ autoreconf
configure.ac:41: error: possibly undefined macro: AC_LIBTOOL_WIN32_DLL
i like to record the flags used when running `./configure` to be shown when
running --version info with programs. yes, i'm aware of option quoting issues
and env vars not being saved and all those other fun details, but those are
irrelevant to me. vast majority of the time, the configure
On Tuesday 10 March 2009 03:18:26 Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Mike Frysinger wrote on Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 08:01:49AM CET:
i like to record the flags used when running `./configure` to be shown
when running --version info with programs.
Undocumented (so watch out when updating Autoconf
On Tuesday 10 March 2009 06:49:12 Keith Marshall wrote:
On Tuesday 10 March 2009 07:18:26 Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
I suppose Autoconf could provide a macro to access this variable
which we could then document.
That would be useful. I've used $ac_configure_args, filtered, to pass
to a
after upgrading from 2.63 to 2.63b, i noticed some code configure.ac files
(like in openssh) results in invalid shell code. this is because
AC_TRY_COMPILE() is invoked with an empty 4th argument: []. i think
specifically, this:
AC_TRY_COMPILE(
[
#include sys/types.h
#include
On Sunday 05 April 2009 20:46:03 Eric Blake wrote:
According to Mike Frysinger on 4/5/2009 4:10 PM:
AC_TRY_COMPILE() is invoked with an empty 4th argument: []. i think
[ sp_expire_available=yes ], []
)
That's not an empty fourth argument. Remember, trailing space
On Sunday 05 April 2009 21:01:29 Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Sunday 05 April 2009 20:46:03 Eric Blake wrote:
That said, autoconf could probably be taught that, for some macros, an
argument of all whitespace is morally equivalent to an empty argument.
Patches welcome.
i'm not an expert by any
On Monday 06 April 2009 08:59:32 Eric Blake wrote:
According to Mike Frysinger on 4/5/2009 7:19 PM:
i'm not an expert by any means with internal autoconf/m4. if there's a
m4 helper function to test whether an argument contains something other
than whitespace, then the change to m4sh.m4
On Monday 06 April 2009 14:09:29 Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Hello Mike, Eric,
* Mike Frysinger wrote on Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 03:16:53PM CEST:
--- a/lib/m4sugar/m4sh.m4
+++ b/lib/m4sugar/m4sh.m4
@@ -607,7 +607,7 @@ m4_define([_AS_IF],
])
m4_define([_AS_IF_ELSE],
[m4_ifvaln([$1
On Monday 06 April 2009 22:25:12 Eric Blake wrote:
Now for a question - right now, m4_default([$1], [$2]) is a nice shorthand
for m4_ifval([$1], [$1], [$2]); is there any reason to create a shorthand
for m4_ifnblank([$1], [$1], [$2]) that likewise only needs two arguments?
And if so, what to
On Monday 13 April 2009 06:03:05 Thomas Dickey wrote:
On Mon, 13 Apr 2009, Thomas Moulard wrote:
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Eric Blake e...@byu.net wrote:
This is very doable. In fact, it is how the m4 testsuite allows the
user to specify an alternate $SED program [1]. You can use
On Wednesday 29 April 2009 15:47:19 Paul Eggert wrote:
It seems that 'trap 1 2 13 15' (without any command) reset the traps
in a reasonably portable way,
I'm afraid not. For example, on Ubuntu 9.04:
$ dash
!-penguin $ trap 1 2
!-penguin $ kill -2 $$
dash: 1: not found
It's hard to
On Wednesday 29 April 2009 16:22:08 Andreas Schwab wrote:
Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org writes:
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/V3_chap02.html#t
rap If the first operand is an unsigned decimal integer, the shell shall
treat all operands as conditions, and shall
On Friday 01 May 2009 10:15:28 Thomas Dickey wrote:
On Fri, 1 May 2009, Patrick Welche wrote:
I haven't seen breakages without this patch, but it seems logical to
me...
supposedly X11R7 moved everything back into non-specific paths such as
/usr/bin
that is the default/common (both
On Saturday 30 May 2009 00:05:32 Ajeet wrote:
I am new to the autotools. I started off using acmkdir and created a
project. This creates a README.in and a README file. However, the README
file is empty. autoconf does not process the README.in file. The
configure.ac file contains the
On Friday 03 July 2009 17:53:30 Sam Thursfield wrote:
Here's something I've not found really discussed anywhere so far,
which I find kind of surprising. Would you accept a patch which made
'autoreconf' honour an 'ACLOCAL_FLAGS' variable?
I ask because I'm working on jhbuild (GNOME build
On Sunday 26 July 2009 16:00:56 Garrett Cooper wrote:
Hi Autoconf folks!
I'm working with the LTP project, in part to unite the Makefiles
and automate bringing in all of our sources with common configuration
data.
LTP consists of many projects and sources, so rather than go out
and
On Monday 05 October 2009 15:21:10 Ben Pfaff wrote:
Gnulib uses AC_RUN_IFELSE in many places. I suspect that most
programs that use Gnulib will fall afoul of these problems too.
gnulib isnt really a relevant example. the vast majority of gnulib is testing
either the system C library or the
On Tuesday 13 October 2009 21:13:29 Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
We have a makefile in a project, which works well. In the short term at
least, we do not want to use autoconf to create a makefile, but instead
use our own.
However, it would be nice to have a configure script at the top, which
at
On Wednesday 14 October 2009 00:36:36 Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
I'm trying to modify this macro
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=autoconf-archive.git;a=blob_plain;f=m
4/ax_count_cpus.m4
which attempt to get the number of CPUs in a system. I'd like to extend
it to cover Solaris, AIX and
On Wednesday 14 October 2009 07:37:33 Alberto Luaces wrote:
I wrote a program that uses data files at runtime. I store them in
$pkgdatadir, and it works fine.
Sometimes I want to execute the program without installing it. To do
this, I change the value of the $pkgdatadir variable at make
On Wednesday 14 October 2009 10:46:17 Alberto Luaces wrote:
Alberto Luaces writes:
Mike Frysinger writes:
On Wednesday 14 October 2009 07:37:33 Alberto Luaces wrote:
Is it possible to do what I want?
1. If pkgdatadir is not specified at configure time, follow the FHS or
GNU guidelines
On Thursday 15 October 2009 04:35:22 Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
If one runs a configure script, and it needs to show a warning for some
reason, that could be missed by someone quite easily. Is there a way I
could insert a 10s or so pause, so it becomes more obvious, and they
hopefully take time
On Sunday 05 April 2009 20:46:03 Eric Blake wrote:
According to Mike Frysinger on 4/5/2009 4:10 PM:
AC_TRY_COMPILE() is invoked with an empty 4th argument: []. i think
[ sp_expire_available=yes ], []
)
That's not an empty fourth argument. Remember, trailing space
On Saturday 21 November 2009 09:08:17 Pierre Wieser wrote:
As a package maintainer, I wondered how to make more easy the
packager work - I'll just drop a comment in Makefile.am...
a package maintainer is already aware of these issues as it'll apply to a vast
number of packages to the relevant
On Wednesday 25 November 2009 12:13:56 Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
I'm reluctant to use this code on every OS, as its not my code, and the
author might not like that, as this does no error checking. But it would
be good to implement it when atoll() is not in the library.
check out the gnulib
On Wednesday 25 November 2009 13:43:34 Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday 25 November 2009 12:13:56 Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
I'm reluctant to use this code on every OS, as its not my code, and the
author might not like that, as this does no error checking
On Wednesday 25 November 2009 16:25:54 Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday 25 November 2009 13:43:34 Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday 25 November 2009 12:13:56 Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
I'm reluctant to use this code on every OS, as its
On Saturday 24 April 2010 17:27:28 Thomas Dickey wrote:
On Sat, 24 Apr 2010, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
Kārlis Repsons wrote:
Hopefully this is sufficiently appropriate place to ask for some help
with making a portable library, which should be usable on both Unixes
and Windows. To be short,
On Tuesday, June 29, 2010 14:26:29 Wesley Smith wrote:
What's the appropriate way to determine 32 v. 64 bit compilation?
what exactly is it you're concerned with ? if it's sizes of specific types,
then do as Bob said and check individual types. you cannot make assumptions
when the target is
On Tuesday, June 29, 2010 16:26:08 Wesley Smith wrote:
please dont top post
For 64bit builds, I need to #define x86_64 for a lib I'm using. It
has nothing to do with the size of longs from my perspective, but
whether the binary is compiled for a 64 or 32 bit target.
is it a binary-only
On Tuesday, June 29, 2010 16:35:30 Wesley Smith wrote:
For 64bit builds, I need to #define x86_64 for a lib I'm using. It
has nothing to do with the size of longs from my perspective, but
whether the binary is compiled for a 64 or 32 bit target.
is it a binary-only library ? if it's
On Saturday, July 03, 2010 15:59:35 Eric Blake wrote:
Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to release 2.67 for another
two weeks; if it helps, then hopefully distro packagers will
pick this up before they build 2.66 into a distro.
does that include pushing fixes to git ? usually i cut
On Wednesday, August 04, 2010 01:36:34 Tao Wang wrote:
I created 'src/foobar.h.in' with following content:
=
#define PATH_PREFIX@prefix@
#define PATH_DATADIR@datadir@
=
And put 'src/foobar.h' in AC_CONFIG_FILES() in 'configure.ac'.
After I run 'autoreconf', the
On Friday, August 06, 2010 20:19:41 Tao Wang wrote:
please dont top post
Thank you. It works for my C/C++ files.
However, how it works on text file and script file? They don't have
compiler to pass the define from parameters. For most scripts, they don't
accept bash syntax ${prefix}, they do
On Friday, October 15, 2010 14:56:51 Václav Haisman wrote:
I am having difficulty testing for compiler features like
__declspec(dllimport) and switches like -Wall or -Werror.
look at the autoconf-archive package. it has macros to help with testing for
compiler switches and compiler
On Tuesday, December 07, 2010 13:56:35 Bruce Korb wrote:
Thank you. automake list folks -- the main question is
Why are .m4 files being installed and how can I prevent it?
because your top level Makefile.am is using:
aclocal_DATA = ...
when i think you should be using:
noinst_DATA = ...
On Monday, March 07, 2011 14:46:56 Reuben Thomas wrote:
To allow for multiple architectures, I use
./configure --prefix=/home/rrt/local --exec-prefix=/home/rrt/local/`uname
-m`
to configure code I want to install in my home directory, which may be
copied on to machines with different
On Friday, April 15, 2011 18:23:03 Gilles wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 21:07:07 -0500 (CDT), Bob Friesenhahn
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us wrote:
The proper solution for this is to have configure test for both fork()
and vfork() (and maybe posix_spawn()). Then you have to decide which
one you
On Friday, April 15, 2011 18:28:39 Harlan Stenn wrote:
Giles wrote:
Thanks Bob, but some applications don't use conditional compiling and
simply use code like this:
if (uClinux) {
*pid = vfork();
} else {
*pid = fork();
}
Will
On Friday, April 15, 2011 18:53:24 Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011, Mike Frysinger wrote:
If you do not want to force people to change their code, you will
probably need to offer a stub fork() to link against on non-MMU CPUs.
the majority of the time, it isnt just fork
On Friday, April 15, 2011 21:54:28 Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
Regardless, using posix_spawn() or posix_spawnp() is a better solution
now if one does not need the full-fledged fork().
in some cases, that is sufficient, assuming that the system in question does
support posix_spawn. we cant all be
On Saturday, April 16, 2011 05:26:37 Gilles wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 18:41:41 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
so change it to #ifdef
The whole point of my question was: opkg's gz_open.c contains the
following code:
if (uClinux) {
*pid = vfork();
} else {
*pid
On Monday, June 20, 2011 12:50:02 Jim Edwards wrote:
As I understand it, I should be able to bootstrap on a single system, check
in the resulting configure and Makefile.in files then on other systems
I should only need to run configure. But this doesn't seem to be working,
I get something
On Monday, October 03, 2011 18:25:46 Michael LIAO wrote:
As x32 psABI (https://sites.google.com/site/x32abi/) is invented, do
we need a new triplet for system relies on triplet to figure out it's
targeted on x32 environment. The new triplet would look like
'x86_64-unknown-linux-gnux32' for x32
On Monday, October 03, 2011 19:47:57 Michael LIAO wrote:
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday, October 03, 2011 18:57:28 Michael LIAO wrote:
Most examples would be related to tools generating code.
Suppose you have a software package with several hard-coded
On Monday, October 03, 2011 23:26:25 Michael LIAO wrote:
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
in terms of asm code, it's still possible to use ifdef's to handle cases
where you truly need different code paths.
Yeah, we could have '#ifdef X32ABI in assembly file to select
On Tuesday 11 October 2011 22:55:35 Michael LIAO wrote:
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Monday, October 03, 2011 18:25:46 Michael LIAO wrote:
The current scheme documented on website
(https://sites.google.com/site/x32abi/) uses the existing triplet
On Wednesday 12 October 2011 01:03:19 Michael LIAO wrote:
I am not asking a dedicated triplet for x32 to be used exclusively for
x32 package build. I am asking additional triplet with enough details
of execution environment (ABI definitely a necessary detail.) for
package which relies on
On Wednesday 02 November 2011 14:34:55 Candy Brady wrote:
Does anyone know of any useful tutorials on how to write an autotest script
to test a c file in a package?
I can an only find one document on autotest, and it does not explain how
you can write an autotest suite. ie What a person needs
On Thursday 10 November 2011 18:03:12 Till Elsner wrote:
I'm trying to configure my own package.
I've located the relevant portion in the configure file. It's
the section with cares for the SSL lib, which matches the fact
that removing the SSL line from the configure.ac file also
removes the
On Friday 11 November 2011 11:13:22 Till Elsner wrote:
Ok, here we go: The following configure.ac seems to serve as a
minimal example:
--- begin configure.ac ---
AC_PREREQ([2.68])
AC_INIT([actest], [1])
AC_SEARCH_LIBS([MD5], [ssl]);
AC_OUTPUT
--- end configure.ac ---
I only have this
On Wednesday 07 December 2011 14:10:27 Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Wed, 7 Dec 2011, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
C++ compilers do not get these definition from stdint.h unless
__STDC_LIMIT_MACROS is defined, the macros are in C99 and later, but
were not in the C++ standard of the day (I don't know
On Wednesday 07 December 2011 16:18:26 Nick Bowler wrote:
On 2011-12-07 15:31 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday 07 December 2011 14:10:27 Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Wed, 7 Dec 2011, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
C++ compilers do not get these definition from stdint.h unless
On Friday 09 December 2011 06:21:18 Rainer Gerhards wrote:
I am trying to build a program so that it does not refer to shared
libraries by their version-specific name but rather a generic one. My
intent is to use checkinstall to generate packages.
As a concrete example, I use some basic
On Sunday 11 December 2011 07:32:38 mi16 wrote:
./configure: line 2958: syntax error near unexpected token `MGTKMM,'
./configure: line 2958: `PKG_CHECK_MODULES(MGTKMM, gtkmm-2.4 = 2.22.0)'
you're missing the m4 from the pkg-config package. install the relevant dev
packages from your distro to
On Monday 12 December 2011 04:02:50 Rainer Gerhards wrote:
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday 09 December 2011 06:21:18 Rainer Gerhards wrote:
I am trying to build a program so that it does not refer to shared
libraries by their version-specific name but rather
On Tuesday 10 January 2012 15:35:58 Roger Pau Monné wrote:
2012/1/10 Mike Frysinger:
On Tuesday 10 January 2012 03:38:03 Roger Pau Monné wrote:
2012/1/10 Eric Blake:
On 01/09/2012 03:46 PM, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
AC_CANONICAL_HOST
As documented in
https://www.gnu.org/software
On Monday 09 January 2012 18:49:28 Eric Blake wrote:
On 01/09/2012 03:46 PM, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
It creates the needed files, but exits with status 1. Is there anyway
to generate config.sub without relying on Automake,
Use 'cp'. That's all the more automake was doing when it outputs
On Tuesday 10 January 2012 16:10:29 Nick Bowler wrote:
On 2012-01-10 15:41 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday 09 January 2012 18:49:28 Eric Blake wrote:
On 01/09/2012 03:46 PM, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
It creates the needed files, but exits with status 1. Is there anyway
On Thursday 12 January 2012 18:32:15 Eric Blake wrote:
First, I'd suggest that you _don't_ use basename(); it has severe
portability problems (POSIX allows, but does not require, it to modify
its incoming argument
and some systems (like some *BSDs) do modify it :(
-mike
signature.asc
On Friday 02 March 2012 11:09:13 Olaf Lenz wrote:
On 03/02/2012 05:45 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
The Autoconf team is considering releasing only .xz files for 2.69;
if this would be a hardship for you, and you need the .gz or .bz2
release, please speak up now.
I want to second Bob
On Friday 02 March 2012 16:41:24 Tim Rice wrote:
On Fri, 2 Mar 2012, Mike Frysinger wrote:
uhh, Sabayon does have xz-utils and has for quite a long time now. after
all, it's simply Gentoo at its core, and Gentoo has had xz-utils for a
long time.
openSUSE has had xz-utils since 11.2
On Friday 02 March 2012 20:08:54 James K. Lowden wrote:
On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 16:48:07 -0700 Warren Young wrote:
I still use systems[*] that don't have tar -J, and am likely to
continue doing so for many years to come. Installing xz isn't a big
deal, but typing the longer commands needed for
On Saturday 03 March 2012 14:52:37 James K. Lowden wrote:
Why does such an arcane, uninteresting technology warrant advertizing
via a new utility and suffix? Why isn't xz a feature of zlib, so that
unzipping applications could automatically use it? If the xz folks
are determined to supplant
On Saturday 03 March 2012 16:12:47 James K. Lowden wrote:
On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 15:47:22 -0500 Mike Frysinger wrote:
As a project downstream from xz, if we must have yet another
compression format independent of gzip, why not let it live along
side the established one(s) until pretty much
On Tuesday 06 March 2012 04:57:27 Jim Meyering wrote:
Why I am happy to dump gzip for xz:
- xz decompresses more quickly
is that true ? i thought last i looked, they were close, but gzip was
consistently slightly faster. maybe if the bottleneck is more I/O than
CPU/memory, xz would win ?
On Tuesday 06 March 2012 12:03:43 Jim Meyering wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Tuesday 06 March 2012 04:57:27 Jim Meyering wrote:
Why I am happy to dump gzip for xz:
- xz decompresses more quickly
is that true ? i thought last i looked, they were close, but gzip was
consistently
you probably want to read chapter 14:
http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/autoconf.html#Manual-Configuration
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf@gnu.org
On Monday 21 May 2012 05:37:37 Steffen Dettmer wrote:
for a project I needed to select C++98. When using g++, this is done
by adding compiler flag -std=c++98. I liked to have a compiler check
whether this option works.
check out this:
On Tuesday 21 August 2012 23:10:28 Jeffrey Walton wrote:
Hi Suzuki,
Anyway, you didn't clarified how such special flags are required,
and the coverages of the objects to be compiled with the special
flags, so nobody will be able to the answer to be used immediately.
I was not aware
On Wednesday 22 August 2012 13:47:30 Jeffrey Walton wrote:
-Wall -Wextra -Wconversion -fPIE -pie -Wno-unused-parameter -Wformat=2
read the log you actually posted. you aren't using -pie (which would be
correct), you're using -Wl,-pie (which is wrong).
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is
On Wednesday 22 August 2012 15:15:07 Jeffrey Walton wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wednesday 22 August 2012 13:47:30 Jeffrey Walton wrote:
-Wall -Wextra -Wconversion -fPIE -pie -Wno-unused-parameter -Wformat=2
read the log you actually
On Wednesday 22 August 2012 18:17:37 Jeffrey Walton wrote:
The posture would have saved a number of folks from, for example,
Pidgin's latest rounds of Critical Vulnerabilities (memory corruption
and code execution). No-exec stacks and heaps would have reduced
many/most to an annoying UI
On Wednesday 22 August 2012 18:28:52 Russ Allbery wrote:
special exceptions. Being able to turn of executable stack as at least
another easily-accessible option is an interesting idea, and I may raise
that on debian-devel. (Although it can be a little hard to predict which
packages need
On Tuesday 18 December 2012 01:10:14 Jeffrey Walton wrote:
If you are going to try the waters with warnings, you should also
consider the flags to integrate with platform security.
Platform security integration includes fortified sources and stack
protectors. Here are the flags of interest:
On Tuesday 18 December 2012 00:28:14 David A. Wheeler wrote:
Jim Meyering said:
Did you realize that several GNU projects now enable virtually
every gcc warning that is available (even including those that
are new in the upcoming gcc-4.8, for folks that use bleeding edge gcc)
via gnulib's
On Friday 12 April 2013 16:38:29 NightStrike wrote:
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
On 04/12/2013 02:20 PM, NightStrike wrote:
Why are link tests not allowed when cross compiling? You don't have
to run the exe to verify that linking worked.
What gave you the
On Friday 12 April 2013 18:02:36 NightStrike wrote:
This is for a pthread replacement library that should be compilable
before we have a working compiler. I did not make the initial build
system for this, so I have to see what problem this macro is trying to
solve.
Conceivably, though, we
On Thursday 18 April 2013 14:06:12 A.P. Horst wrote:
been trying my way in autotools land for a short while now, and I must
say, it works like a charm.
But there is one thing I've been breaking my head on for a while now.
Many of my projects use GCC, some use a totally different compiler and
On Wednesday 08 May 2013 01:01:06 Paul Eggert wrote:
On 05/07/2013 08:49 PM, Anatol Pomozov wrote:
recent versions of glibc produces a
warning when it compiles apps with _FORTIFY_SOURCE but without -O2
That's a real problem, which will break lots of things.
i complained when the change
On Thursday 09 May 2013 11:24:27 Zack Weinberg wrote:
(That said, I've never been clear myself on why CFLAGS and CPPFLAGS
*are* separate, except possibly the now-long-obsolete historical
reason that some traditional preprocessors didn't accept arbitrary
compiler options.)
because there are
On Monday 08 October 2012 08:46:57 Paul Wise wrote:
So, Debian is in the process of bringing up our upcoming arm64 port.
Unfortunately we are also coming across lots of packages with rather
outdated config.guess and config.sub files (see links below). We could
patch every single package that
On Wednesday 15 May 2013 09:54:08 Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 05/15/2013 05:53 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday 08 October 2012 08:46:57 Paul Wise wrote:
So, Debian is in the process of bringing up our upcoming arm64 port.
Unfortunately we are also coming across lots of packages with rather
On Wednesday 15 May 2013 12:26:46 Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 05/15/2013 06:13 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday 15 May 2013 09:54:08 Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 05/15/2013 05:53 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday 08 October 2012 08:46:57 Paul Wise wrote:
So, Debian is in the process
On Wednesday 15 May 2013 15:25:31 Warren Young wrote:
On 5/15/2013 11:20, Mike Frysinger wrote:
i understand the point you're making. however, ~10 years of building
from source in Gentoo and doing this for every single build has shown
that in practice, it's irrelevant.
It's irrelevant
On Thursday 16 May 2013 15:28:39 Warren Young wrote:
On 5/15/2013 14:27, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday 15 May 2013 15:25:31 Warren Young wrote:
we've got pretty good coverage for anything passably relevant (and then
some).
So, because Gentoo has N text editors in the repo, the N+1th
On Tuesday 21 May 2013 09:57:32 Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Tuesday 2013-05-21 07:33, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
Works for me. But we [distros] do want to mandate autoreconf anyway in
the general case: it is the *only* way to keep upstream honest about
the much hated build system not bitrotting
On Monday 20 May 2013 10:37:00 Eric Blake wrote:
On 05/18/2013 05:45 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
On Fri, 2013-05-17 at 16:05 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
Yes. It would have been really useful if autofoo used whatever is in
/usr/share/misc, unless there is a config.sub.override or
On Saturday 18 May 2013 07:45:54 Paul Wise wrote:
On Fri, 2013-05-17 at 16:05 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
Yes. It would have been really useful if autofoo used whatever is in
/usr/share/misc, unless there is a config.sub.override or
config.guess.override file in the source
On Wednesday 22 May 2013 12:27:38 Eric Blake wrote:
On 05/22/2013 10:22 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
I would MUCH rather see us honor a CONFIG_GUESS and CONFIG_SUB
environment variable, rather than baking in a PATH search. This topic
has come up in the past, where I made the same request back
On Thursday 23 May 2013 10:31:26 Eric Blake wrote:
On 05/22/2013 11:43 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
my point for keeping the automatic search behavior is so that people
don't have to pour through --help output and set yet-more esoteric
variables so things just work. you're of course right
On Saturday 01 June 2013 19:27:46 Kip Warner wrote:
On Fri, 2013-05-31 at 08:31 -0500, Robert Boehne wrote:
I don't quite understand why you think you need the rest linked
statically,
Libraries like the following may not be present on the end user's system
already:
be aware that what
On Sunday 02 June 2013 01:10:36 Kip Warner wrote:
On Sat, 2013-06-01 at 23:14 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
be aware that what ever version of glibc gcc you use to build, the end
user cannot have a version older than that or it'll fail to start
Do you mean in the case of dynamic linking
On Thursday 18 July 2013 19:51:51 Russ Allbery wrote:
It doesn't -- but neither of those use the lib64/lib32 layout either,
because that layout can't represent that difference. They do something
more complicated (they have to). So basically it's out of scope for what
my macro is trying to
On Wednesday 31 July 2013 11:16:27 Nate Bargmann wrote:
* On 2013 31 Jul 08:03 -0500, LRN wrote:
On 31.07.2013 16:17, Daniel Pocock wrote:
Should we be distributing a config script, e.g. bin/xxx-config that can
emit CPPFLAGS?
Either that, or distribute a .pc file for pkg-config (and
On Tuesday 14 January 2014 19:20:56 Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014, Alexander Holler wrote:
I just was curious if there was some progress on that topic besides what
Ralf Wildenhues seemed to have tried out.
The most challenging aspect is because configure scripts have a huge
On Tuesday 14 January 2014 20:11:34 Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014, Mike Frysinger wrote:
there's semi-precedence though with introducing new macros when there's
no
confidence in safely converting existing one. consider:
AC_CHECK_FUNC beget
AC_CHECK_FUNCs beget
On Wed 30 Jul 2014 22:32:50 Adam Jiang wrote:
It seems there is a macro create for ncurses detection
http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf-archive/ax_with_curses.html
This macro could help to find out include path and right libraries for
libnruse.so.
How about the c++ binding for ncurse?
On Fri 04 Jul 2014 12:18:53 David A. Wheeler wrote:
This does not help you right now, but Dale Visser posted a patch to autoconf
a few months ago that would solve your problem correctly. His patch adds
the ability to check if a compiler supports a particular flag. My hope is
that this ability
1 - 100 of 178 matches
Mail list logo
